- 2001 Jeep Cherokee
- #39;85 Jeep Cherokee 2.8L bored
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport: Cry
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee 2 inch lift
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
- Jeep Cherokee XJ 2quot; Lift Kit
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport
- Lifted Jeep Cherokee
- Lifted 2001 Jeep Cherokee
- Here is a close up of the Jeep
- 2001 Jeep Cherokee 3 Inch Lift
- ProComp Jeep Cherokee XJ
- 31#39;s on a 3 Inch Lift - Jeep
- 1984-2001 Jeep Cherokee
- Select a lift height for more
- Jeep Cherokee Overland
SciFrog
Nov 18, 05:25 PM
It is almost becoming that unless you do bigadv units, why bother...
The top end iMac now gets as much as 7 times the top previous generation iMac...
The top end iMac now gets as much as 7 times the top previous generation iMac...
grouse
Jul 20, 08:35 AM
If desktops sales are down 23%, is that revenue or units?
If it's revenue, then it's hardly surprising. If the most expensive models are essentially stalled waiting on new chips/new enclosures/new universal binary apps from Quark and Adobemedia, as backed up by reports that apple store staff in the last quarter have actually been advising punters NOT to buy the G5 towers, then actually that's pretty much as expected I'd have thought.
If new Mac Pro models are just around the corner then you'd expect a big leap for the 4th quarter. I, for one, am part of the higher spend pent-up demand sector. And don't forget, bureaux, design studios, architects, 3D motion design/modeller etcs have big budgets and if they pause on buying it is going to skew the Apple market. As everyone says, expect a big leap in the Desktop Pro market over the next two quarters.
If it's revenue, then it's hardly surprising. If the most expensive models are essentially stalled waiting on new chips/new enclosures/new universal binary apps from Quark and Adobemedia, as backed up by reports that apple store staff in the last quarter have actually been advising punters NOT to buy the G5 towers, then actually that's pretty much as expected I'd have thought.
If new Mac Pro models are just around the corner then you'd expect a big leap for the 4th quarter. I, for one, am part of the higher spend pent-up demand sector. And don't forget, bureaux, design studios, architects, 3D motion design/modeller etcs have big budgets and if they pause on buying it is going to skew the Apple market. As everyone says, expect a big leap in the Desktop Pro market over the next two quarters.
hellomoto4
Mar 31, 06:45 AM
Does the realistic texture show up only in full screen mode, or is it that way all the time? In a window, I think it might be distracting, but in full screen, I don't think I would mind it.
It shows up in both full screen and non-full screen. Totally agree though, it definitely looks better and less distracting in full screen.
Can you post a screenshot?
Non-full screen: http://grab.by/9LUu
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
It shows up in both full screen and non-full screen. Totally agree though, it definitely looks better and less distracting in full screen.
Can you post a screenshot?
Non-full screen: http://grab.by/9LUu
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
generik
Sep 8, 07:06 PM
Number of posts in this thread seem to indicate that this update has been underwhelming
imac_japan
Mar 21, 09:21 AM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
dpaanlka
Aug 7, 06:13 AM
This should help..
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
wow how did i miss that??
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
wow how did i miss that??
evilgEEk
Sep 8, 08:01 PM
Number of posts in this thread seem to indicate that this update has been underwhelming
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
adamjay
Apr 8, 11:18 PM
Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac .
yea show me a PC Box with a 17" to 20" LCD, and comparable spec's as the imac that costs $500 total? and don't even spit some BS about framerates in Halo.
you have to be smart to be a smart-ass.
yea show me a PC Box with a 17" to 20" LCD, and comparable spec's as the imac that costs $500 total? and don't even spit some BS about framerates in Halo.
you have to be smart to be a smart-ass.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
zap2
Mar 21, 12:39 PM
This is being led by the UK and France... Obama has been dragging his feet.
http://www.france24.com/en/20110318-cameron-sarkozy-lead-no-fly-zone-effort-libya-benghazi
Doesn't seem to stop Obama from going on TV to claim credit though.
Did I miss something in that link? It just says UK and France were taking the lead, nothing about Obama "dragging his feet"...considering the number of forces the US has around the globe, I welcome this UN usage of force not being lead by the US.
http://www.france24.com/en/20110318-cameron-sarkozy-lead-no-fly-zone-effort-libya-benghazi
Doesn't seem to stop Obama from going on TV to claim credit though.
Did I miss something in that link? It just says UK and France were taking the lead, nothing about Obama "dragging his feet"...considering the number of forces the US has around the globe, I welcome this UN usage of force not being lead by the US.
P-Worm
Nov 15, 08:01 AM
They say that the changes in speed aren't going to effect most people because the programs aren't written for multiple cores. Do you think that we are going to see more consumer apps optimized for multiple processors, or do you think that it just isn't needed?
P-Worm
P-Worm
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:15 PM
http://twitpic.com/4k71a8
Looks like same basic layout, after you get past the iMovie-likeness.
Also, no more render dialogue and it uses all cores to render. :)
Looks like same basic layout, after you get past the iMovie-likeness.
Also, no more render dialogue and it uses all cores to render. :)
Micjose
Mar 22, 04:52 PM
This is great for large quantities of uncompressed music. Totally would get one if it did have that much more space.
jowie
Apr 26, 01:17 PM
App Store [TM]
I think you mean App Store�
Never forget cmd-alt-2 (or apple-option-2 if you're old-skool) ;)
I think you mean App Store�
Never forget cmd-alt-2 (or apple-option-2 if you're old-skool) ;)
rxse7en
Nov 29, 03:48 PM
Its outputs are HDMI and component video. It is designed for HD content.
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
Would be cool if it could upscale streaming video to 1080i at least. I may forgo the iTV if there's ever a solution to stream vid from the Mac to the XBox 360 though. I must say, the 360 is a great piece of hardware at it's current price point. As others have pointed out, would be nice if the iTV supported 1080p over HDMI.
I loved my first car--'79 RX7 and have had several since. My current one is a heavily modified '91 Turbo II. Hopefully we'll see a 4th gen 7 some day.
B
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
Would be cool if it could upscale streaming video to 1080i at least. I may forgo the iTV if there's ever a solution to stream vid from the Mac to the XBox 360 though. I must say, the 360 is a great piece of hardware at it's current price point. As others have pointed out, would be nice if the iTV supported 1080p over HDMI.
I loved my first car--'79 RX7 and have had several since. My current one is a heavily modified '91 Turbo II. Hopefully we'll see a 4th gen 7 some day.
B
cyclotron451
Nov 16, 07:37 AM
Notwithstandign such long-standing facts, there are still some MS fanboys here who think Windows is better for multicore usage (not to mention multitasking, which has been ALWAYS better in OS X)... :rolleyes:
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
matrix07
Apr 3, 02:29 AM
You can pinch to zoom on video now? How?
Classy ad btw.
Classy ad btw.
Jack97
Apr 3, 04:13 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
aswitcher
Aug 16, 05:24 PM
I really want wireless earphones and a bigger better def screen. I just dont think its goign to happen soon or be cheap.
I would prefer the mythical 7" screen mac that can work fine when closed and weighs less than a kilo...
I would prefer the mythical 7" screen mac that can work fine when closed and weighs less than a kilo...
milo
Aug 29, 09:02 AM
Incredibly underwhelming.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
KingYaba
Aug 16, 04:17 PM
Just wait and see. I bet the only new thing we'll see is iPod Nano's getting more storage. As for the replacment of the iPod Video. Just a bigger screen.
finchna
Oct 23, 09:20 AM
Apple needs to get away from making such a big deal our of small updates (processor change) as Intel will have such things changing more often than motorola or ibm ever did. apple should reserve such announcements and hoopla for major revisions or complete overhauls. based on recent benchmarks there is little performance improvement in these new chips save for the speed bump.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:31 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 01:02 PM
for me, this would go into the "who cares" column. i don't need another notebook no matter how thin it is. what i need is a sub notebook. i don't believe a thinner notebook would garner all of this much attention. not a big enough deal. not the apple style. MacBook Air. i have to say no way.
i'll go out on a limb and say the "air" has something to do with a new wireless network to replace the stupid EDGE network.
Maybe its not just thinner, maybe its got some special feautre(s)! Or maybe it has a multi-touch display!
i'll go out on a limb and say the "air" has something to do with a new wireless network to replace the stupid EDGE network.
Maybe its not just thinner, maybe its got some special feautre(s)! Or maybe it has a multi-touch display!
Source URL: https://carrevieeeew.blogspot.com/2011/05/2001-jeep-cherokee-lifted.html
Visit Car Review for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
0 comments:
Post a Comment