Multimedia
Sep 6, 10:32 AM
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.No problem. Just add an EyeTV hybrid (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) for $150 to one ofthe 4 USB ports and you are good to go. Hang a FW400 external 400GB HD for about $150 total - case and HD - and you have your TV server. Why would Apple do it when Elgato already has the perfect ultimate solution? :confused:
aussie_geek
Oct 24, 03:58 AM
aussie_geek: since this upgrade is so trivial and meaningless to you ..... why do you keep reading and posting in this thread? LOL!
I've been waiting for this upgrade since Core Duo debuted in January, and I'll be up, bright and early, to order a C2D MBP in the morning! wOOt!
:D
iBorg
just to stir the pot!! :p
aussie_geek
I've been waiting for this upgrade since Core Duo debuted in January, and I'll be up, bright and early, to order a C2D MBP in the morning! wOOt!
:D
iBorg
just to stir the pot!! :p
aussie_geek
rasmasyean
Apr 8, 03:43 AM
Well, they don't necessarily need to field troops that shoot rifles. Having a ground force can mean a lot of different things, including spec ops. I think one feasible solution may be to have US troops field artillery. This might be one of those opportunites to test "smart artillery" on those trenches near civilians and hospitals. They might also try to blow up more tanks so they can sell them more refurbished M1 Abrams later. I think smart artillery is more economical than aerial bombing runs to blow up some cheap russian tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
rdlink
Mar 22, 09:59 PM
I have way more than 50,000 songs, and even the worst of them is more necessary than your comment.
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
MacinDoc
Sep 5, 12:12 AM
Would something in this realm be feasible for the mini updates? Just wondering while waiting for updates. Of course this is very vague on my part.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
Won't happen, all Core Solos are now the same price as the 1.66 GHz Core2 Duo. So, the Solo is dead. And, regrettably, a price drop is unlikely.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
Won't happen, all Core Solos are now the same price as the 1.66 GHz Core2 Duo. So, the Solo is dead. And, regrettably, a price drop is unlikely.
ipedro
Apr 12, 08:35 PM
Who thinks that they'll eliminate Final Cut Express and lower the price of Final Cut Pro? iMovie seems to serve the "express crowd" while FCP would be within reach of the semi-pro demographic if the price were around $300.
LarryC
Mar 6, 02:33 PM
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
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.
jav6454
Mar 24, 10:27 PM
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Chundles
Nov 15, 08:08 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
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Next Tuesday...
P-Worm
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Next Tuesday...
mrgreen4242
Sep 6, 10:30 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.
tablo13
Sep 16, 04:52 PM
Perhaps, but it's also nearly 20 times as expensive.
But it also includes a stand, screen protector, and seems like most brand cases are around $20. But I do love the blue colour in the picture there. :D
But it also includes a stand, screen protector, and seems like most brand cases are around $20. But I do love the blue colour in the picture there. :D
Stridder44
Nov 28, 11:55 AM
For all those people talking about XBox let's not forget one major thing about it. It took off because of Halo. What you may not know is that Halo was originally a mac game from a mac developer that MS bought in 2000. Read up on it to tell your MS fanboi friends here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie_Studios
Without Apple gaming there probably would be no XBox today.
Enjoy
Wow! That was new to me! The more you know I guess..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie_Studios
Without Apple gaming there probably would be no XBox today.
Enjoy
Wow! That was new to me! The more you know I guess..
TalonFlyer
Sep 14, 10:48 AM
Does the iPhone have an inherent design issue with regards to antenna performance. The answer is, absolutely YES. Does the bumper mitigate this issue, in my experience it does, however only a marginal amount.
I have dropped calls every day, in places where I would have near full signal if I was not holding the phone. I have 3G data issues, especially in the fringe areas where I did not have an issue with my 3Gs.
The iPhone is a great device and I agree that consumer reports is splitting hairs with the antenna issue.
Apple agree's there is a problem or they would not have given away bumpers to everyone.
Fortunately, I use my iPhone as a phone only about 20% of the time, so 80% of my use is great. The other 20% is only a problem about 1 in 7 calls.
So, while it is a little inconvenient when a call drops when I hold the phone in that way, or short data interruptions on 3G from time-to-time, overall I get a lot done with the iPhone.
I do look forward to changing my iPhone to a newer device at the first reasonable opportunity, primarily because of the antenna issue.
I have dropped calls every day, in places where I would have near full signal if I was not holding the phone. I have 3G data issues, especially in the fringe areas where I did not have an issue with my 3Gs.
The iPhone is a great device and I agree that consumer reports is splitting hairs with the antenna issue.
Apple agree's there is a problem or they would not have given away bumpers to everyone.
Fortunately, I use my iPhone as a phone only about 20% of the time, so 80% of my use is great. The other 20% is only a problem about 1 in 7 calls.
So, while it is a little inconvenient when a call drops when I hold the phone in that way, or short data interruptions on 3G from time-to-time, overall I get a lot done with the iPhone.
I do look forward to changing my iPhone to a newer device at the first reasonable opportunity, primarily because of the antenna issue.
notjustjay
Apr 21, 11:57 AM
One way they could alleviate the "issue" is to simply report the (anonymous) data more frequently, and then dump the cache. I wouldn't care as much about a week's worth of location data as opposed to months' worth.
(Incidentally: we have like/dislike buttons on a per-post basis now? :confused: )
(Incidentally: we have like/dislike buttons on a per-post basis now? :confused: )
wms121
Nov 21, 09:58 AM
Mercury can get you a cell plug-in for the PCI slot:
http://www.mc.com/cell/products/view/index.cfm?id=106&type=boards
Lessee....179 GFLOPS. Can't link it in tandem with IBM Blades, just Mercury
Cell's..hmmm*.
..where is my binary calculator?
WW
*{..found this stuff later:
1267308014 Justin Bieber Baby
Justin Bieber#39;s quot;Babyquot; Video
justin+ieber+when+he+was+
http://www.mc.com/cell/products/view/index.cfm?id=106&type=boards
Lessee....179 GFLOPS. Can't link it in tandem with IBM Blades, just Mercury
Cell's..hmmm*.
..where is my binary calculator?
WW
*{..found this stuff later:
res1233
Apr 12, 09:54 PM
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
Exactly. Apple's philosophy with all their software is to make it powerful, yet simple so that you don't have to be a pro to figure out how to use it, at least the basics. You can use Mac OS X without ever touching the terminal or using Applescript, but if you're an advanced user, you have a ton of features available to you, should you chose to take advantage of them. I think that's the direction FCP has gone with this version.
Exactly. Apple's philosophy with all their software is to make it powerful, yet simple so that you don't have to be a pro to figure out how to use it, at least the basics. You can use Mac OS X without ever touching the terminal or using Applescript, but if you're an advanced user, you have a ton of features available to you, should you chose to take advantage of them. I think that's the direction FCP has gone with this version.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 04:40 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
sisyphus
Sep 1, 03:49 PM
It has seemed as obvious at almost every point in Apple's history within the past 4 years. That doesn't change a thing.
Apple had ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS had a noticable gap between its top-of-the-line consumer machine and it's "entry-level" professional machine. As much as I'd love a middle-tier headless Mac, I just don't think it's in the cards.
The difference now is that there is no crippled Mac Pro. The low end PowerMac was always crippled in some way to the mid and high end. There would always be an old motherboard, slower bus, less RAM...
This time the machines are consistent all the way across. Why? Because with the Woodcrest/Conroe differentiations they can actually create different categories.
Pros -> faster bus, 2 CPU (Woodcrest). Mac Pro
Prosumer -> Mid bus, 1 CPU (Conroe). Mac
Consumer -> Slower bus, quiet, one piece, slower CPU (Merom). iMac
Budget -> Slowest, minimalist comptuer, old tech (Yonah). Mac Mini
Seems pretty obvious. The hole left in the product line is the biggest yet, but the processor steps are VERY clear and not overlapping each other.
mini (Yonah) < iMac (Merom)< Mac (Conroe) < Mac Pro (2xWoodcrest)
Apple had ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS had a noticable gap between its top-of-the-line consumer machine and it's "entry-level" professional machine. As much as I'd love a middle-tier headless Mac, I just don't think it's in the cards.
The difference now is that there is no crippled Mac Pro. The low end PowerMac was always crippled in some way to the mid and high end. There would always be an old motherboard, slower bus, less RAM...
This time the machines are consistent all the way across. Why? Because with the Woodcrest/Conroe differentiations they can actually create different categories.
Pros -> faster bus, 2 CPU (Woodcrest). Mac Pro
Prosumer -> Mid bus, 1 CPU (Conroe). Mac
Consumer -> Slower bus, quiet, one piece, slower CPU (Merom). iMac
Budget -> Slowest, minimalist comptuer, old tech (Yonah). Mac Mini
Seems pretty obvious. The hole left in the product line is the biggest yet, but the processor steps are VERY clear and not overlapping each other.
mini (Yonah) < iMac (Merom)< Mac (Conroe) < Mac Pro (2xWoodcrest)
Zadillo
Aug 6, 09:24 PM
Longhorn is code name, The product name is Vista you will not see a third name for windows vista. Just like Windows XP I think was called Whistler (code name).
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
lorductape
Nov 27, 05:08 PM
I just hope they adjust their prices while they are at it. I love the Apple monitors but they are overpriced. Go to CompUSA and you can find at least 4-5 20" wide-screen monitors from $250-$399. At $699 they are way out or touch with the rest of the market. I could see paying a $100 premium at $499 but not $300.
I agree, however, you get what you pay for, as has been proven many times before by apple. how many other monitors of the pix. dimensions of the 30' are there on the market? the resolutions are amazing! also, I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.
I agree, however, you get what you pay for, as has been proven many times before by apple. how many other monitors of the pix. dimensions of the 30' are there on the market? the resolutions are amazing! also, I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.
DrFrankTM
Sep 1, 01:21 PM
I think you're absolutely right!! They need to stick in a couple of digial tuners in it too tho.....
The problem with adding tuners from what I understand is that there are many different standards throughout the world. Anyone knows if there are there tuners that do it all at the moment? Even without a tuner though, it'd be a pretty slick machine.
Also, if Apple markets those as HDTVs-that-are-also-computers instead of computers-with-big-screens, I think they could go after a part of the HDTV market that would more than compensate the "downgrades" from the Mac Pro. But a 23-inch model would not only cause downgrades from the Mac Pro. People like me would upgrade from the Mini too! I wanted more than the 20-inch iMac's 1680x1050 for my main screen. Since I bought a Dell screen to go with my Mini, Apple lost a sale there.
A 23-inch iMac would also crank up Apple's coolness factor a couple of notches. I mean... the Mac Pro is cool and all, but few people - the regular folks, not us gadgets freaks - want to have such a huge box in their living room, and Apple could give better specs to a 23-inch iMac than those of a Mini+screen. Anyways, I think it'd be an awesome product. I hope we'll see something like that in the near future.
The problem with adding tuners from what I understand is that there are many different standards throughout the world. Anyone knows if there are there tuners that do it all at the moment? Even without a tuner though, it'd be a pretty slick machine.
Also, if Apple markets those as HDTVs-that-are-also-computers instead of computers-with-big-screens, I think they could go after a part of the HDTV market that would more than compensate the "downgrades" from the Mac Pro. But a 23-inch model would not only cause downgrades from the Mac Pro. People like me would upgrade from the Mini too! I wanted more than the 20-inch iMac's 1680x1050 for my main screen. Since I bought a Dell screen to go with my Mini, Apple lost a sale there.
A 23-inch iMac would also crank up Apple's coolness factor a couple of notches. I mean... the Mac Pro is cool and all, but few people - the regular folks, not us gadgets freaks - want to have such a huge box in their living room, and Apple could give better specs to a 23-inch iMac than those of a Mini+screen. Anyways, I think it'd be an awesome product. I hope we'll see something like that in the near future.
BRLawyer
Aug 25, 11:23 AM
BestBuy says that MacMinis AND iMacs are sold out...will we see faster iMacs soon as well???
catracho
Mar 24, 08:27 PM
Do you think that the support of these 5xxxx cards could mean the return of the 24" iMac?
Too many cards for only 2 models (21" and 27")....
Too many cards for only 2 models (21" and 27")....
No comments:
Post a Comment