Yeah I tend to do the same thing. I feel like it's due to my general lack of organization, so I'm trying to get into using folders more - but for apps that I don't know immediately where they are, it's Spotlight all the way.

Yup. I'm probably at the very, very top of their user-base in terms of technical knowledge. I'm a web developer. If Facebook's UI confuses me, there's no hope for the other 900 million users. It feels terribly unnatural and cluttered. I think the Timeline design is a disaster. I hope that dual column layout with…

Neat, thanks for the info

85MB of insanely high resolution wallpaper? YES PLEASE!

Perhaps this is nitpicky, but I would REALLY like the folder icon to display its containing apps 4 across, instead of 3. I realize this would be difficult to fit in to the square icon, but here's why: I scan a folder, see the tiny icon for the app I'd like to launch, and somewhere, mentally, I prepare to click on…

Replying to promote because I've been talking about Facebook being on the decline for months now, and people used to look at me like I had three heads, since their user base just keeps growing. But you (and I) are 100% right. Facebook is going to be in the land of forgotten social networking services soon enough! …

No worries! You bring up a good point - if subpixel rendering isn't possible on non-retina apps, then they may look noticeably crappy when compared to the same app on a non-retina device. I don't know enough about subpixel rendering to comment on if that's an issue or not, though. Good point nevertheless.

This screenshot is comparing Safari (running at full resolution) to Chrome (being doubled). Subpixel rendering could absolutely play into it, but it seems obvious to me that non-retina apps would look comparably crappy to retina apps. It's no different than running a non-retina app on a third gen iPad. It should…

Got it - thanks.

Ah, you know, I wasn't really focusing on the shared minutes and messaging - DOH. I thought these were just data prices for some reason. Clearly I skipped over half the table. This makes much more sense now.

Because it's being pixel doubled? Isn't the reason obvious?

Does this mean that just for a smartphone with the lowest possible data plan (1 GB), it'd cost $90? ($40 + $50)? Or am I reading this table wrong?

Also, cooling, 24x7 operation, Xeon chips, RAID, better GPUs.

Someone else started this thread.

That's why you always carry a decoy TI.

The Mac Pros were not refreshed with Ivy Bridge chips. You can get a W3565 (Bloomfield, Q4'09) or a E5645 (Westmere, Q1'10). You can get a Radeon 5770 or 5870 (both October 09, I believe).

I have plenty of corporate customers who would absolutely love these. They hate having to deal with third parties to get protection for the backs of their iPads.

If it's so obvious, why don't any other laptop manufacturers employ similar connectors?

I read this whole article reading "MacBook Pro" as "Mac Pro" and was so, so very confused. I should just go back to bed.

Different displays.