aricher
Nov 28, 09:49 AM
Those numbers are horrible for a holiday season launch.
From Zune to Ruin - the Microsoft Story, coming to book stores soon.
From Zune to Ruin - the Microsoft Story, coming to book stores soon.
devinci99
Mar 22, 04:15 PM
I do think it's possible that Apple might re-invent the classic.
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
FrenchMac
Jan 12, 08:28 AM
The most obvious reason behind the name MacBook Air for me is the removal of the wired Ethernet connector to the MacBook. There is two thing that prevent from making a very slim notebook: an optical drive and an ethernet connector (look at the ethernet connector on a MacBook, it take most of the height of the notebook).
So the MacBook Air would be the first Apple notebook having only a wireless connection...
And I agree that it will be made of aluminium...
FrenchMac
So the MacBook Air would be the first Apple notebook having only a wireless connection...
And I agree that it will be made of aluminium...
FrenchMac
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
You mean made easier to use?
No, I'll take easier to use in a heartbeat unless the way they made it easier to use was to dumb it down. Making something better and making something easier to use aren't necessarily the same thing. An automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual transmission but there are a host of reasons why manual transmission are the better choice.
Lots of the changes to FCP X look very promising. The 'enhanced' labeling/tagging feature for clips sounds great. As does their new stab at having an 'open timeline' (hopefully it works out much better than their current attempt at it). The easy color matching between shots could save me a ton of tedious work that I hate doing assuming it works properly.
I'm not against change itself I'm just against change for the worse or change for the sake of change.
Lethal
No, I'll take easier to use in a heartbeat unless the way they made it easier to use was to dumb it down. Making something better and making something easier to use aren't necessarily the same thing. An automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual transmission but there are a host of reasons why manual transmission are the better choice.
Lots of the changes to FCP X look very promising. The 'enhanced' labeling/tagging feature for clips sounds great. As does their new stab at having an 'open timeline' (hopefully it works out much better than their current attempt at it). The easy color matching between shots could save me a ton of tedious work that I hate doing assuming it works properly.
I'm not against change itself I'm just against change for the worse or change for the sake of change.
Lethal
barmann
May 2, 08:59 PM
Haha so many mad fanboys. " APL Y U RUIN MY OSX"
I think its a neat trinket, deleting apps this way, but nothing major worth over analyzing.
I was under the impression an Apple fanboy is someone who applauds whatever move Apple makes to lead us into a brighter future .
Besides, the new feature doesn't delete apps, only applets, if that . ;)
I think its a neat trinket, deleting apps this way, but nothing major worth over analyzing.
I was under the impression an Apple fanboy is someone who applauds whatever move Apple makes to lead us into a brighter future .
Besides, the new feature doesn't delete apps, only applets, if that . ;)
bob_hearn
Oct 23, 08:30 AM
Of course, we all know exactly what this rumor really means.
It means, simply, that the "Full Laptop Refresh By Holidays?" thread will stop short of 4000.
It means, simply, that the "Full Laptop Refresh By Holidays?" thread will stop short of 4000.
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 09:10 PM
Oh yes :) 64 bit! At last :D
rasmasyean
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
All I'm saying is that behind the scenes when you look at the facts, there's a different story and you can't take everything at face value...and you should know that about politicians too. I think some of you are "glad" that it's finally not purely lead by the US and this is like some "dream team" thing. But I'm just afraid that you are just in denial. :cool:
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
All I'm saying is that behind the scenes when you look at the facts, there's a different story and you can't take everything at face value...and you should know that about politicians too. I think some of you are "glad" that it's finally not purely lead by the US and this is like some "dream team" thing. But I'm just afraid that you are just in denial. :cool:
sorepheet
Apr 11, 07:31 AM
Currently own a 2007 Toyota Yaris manual transmission and LOVE it! Average 33 MPG, best MPG to date: 46!!!
TuffLuffJimmy
Feb 24, 12:07 AM
on a random note just so you know switching to diesel you need to improve your MPG by around 30% for the switch to be carbon neutral. Remember Diesel as a lot more carbon in it per unit volume than unleaded.
Because it's more crude. The carbon is sapped out through a refining process, meaning all that crap sucked out of the earth still ends up somewhere it's not supposed to be -- meaning diesel is just as carbon neutral as gasoline.
Because it's more crude. The carbon is sapped out through a refining process, meaning all that crap sucked out of the earth still ends up somewhere it's not supposed to be -- meaning diesel is just as carbon neutral as gasoline.
diamond.g
Mar 24, 02:07 PM
The GPU can do that, no need for CPU. The CPU is just there to tell the GPU what to crunch assuming no FLAGS were thrown regarding a particular DRM-protected data.
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
freeny
Jan 1, 07:29 PM
Unless something not mentioned yet is unveiled this Macworld will be just an average event.
I used to be excited about a full screen iPod but the rumors have brought about so many disappointments pertaining to the release date that I don't care any more.
The phone is so over hyped that anything short of a miracle product will be a huge letdown.
iTV has already been announced before and its inclusion in in this MW has been practically promised by SJ himself. If its only a streaming device then for the predicted price it sounds nice but nothing Im going to run out and get. Throw in an encoder and tivo like function and I might grab one.
A Leopard release would be cool but we all know that aint happening.
Perhaps Ill be proven wrong.....
I used to be excited about a full screen iPod but the rumors have brought about so many disappointments pertaining to the release date that I don't care any more.
The phone is so over hyped that anything short of a miracle product will be a huge letdown.
iTV has already been announced before and its inclusion in in this MW has been practically promised by SJ himself. If its only a streaming device then for the predicted price it sounds nice but nothing Im going to run out and get. Throw in an encoder and tivo like function and I might grab one.
A Leopard release would be cool but we all know that aint happening.
Perhaps Ill be proven wrong.....
Multimedia
Nov 15, 09:34 PM
No. The number of core in the system does not imply you need more memory however it does imply you may need more memory bandwidth (depends on what you plan to use the cores for).
Running many applications, especially memory hungry ones, concurrently is what could require additional memory to run efficiently (depends on working set of the applications you plan to run).
With that said ... to get the most memory bandwidth potential in a Mac Pro you need fully populate peer banks with DIMMs. For example in the following graphic you would want to populate slots A1, A2, B1 and B2 before any other slots to get the widest data path to memory.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Art/060634001312_05.jpg
For more details on Mac Pro memory review Mac Pro RAM Expansion Details (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Articles/RAM_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003899-DontLinkElementID_3) or the simpler to read Mac Pro Memory Guide (pdf) (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacPro_MemoryDIMM_DIY.pdf)One question about 512MB vs 1 & 2 GB mod bandwidth. If the Mac comes with two 512MB mods installed in Riser A and I buy two 2GB modules to put into Riser B - total 5GB, will the slower bandwidth (or whatever it's called) of the two 512MB mods slowing down the faster 2GB mods be offset by having RAM installed in both risers rather than pulling the 512's and only having two 2GB mods installed in Riser A only - total 4GB? The difference of 1GB of RAM doesn't seem like that part would matter if the 512 mods slow everything down.
Running many applications, especially memory hungry ones, concurrently is what could require additional memory to run efficiently (depends on working set of the applications you plan to run).
With that said ... to get the most memory bandwidth potential in a Mac Pro you need fully populate peer banks with DIMMs. For example in the following graphic you would want to populate slots A1, A2, B1 and B2 before any other slots to get the widest data path to memory.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Art/060634001312_05.jpg
For more details on Mac Pro memory review Mac Pro RAM Expansion Details (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Articles/RAM_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003899-DontLinkElementID_3) or the simpler to read Mac Pro Memory Guide (pdf) (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacPro_MemoryDIMM_DIY.pdf)One question about 512MB vs 1 & 2 GB mod bandwidth. If the Mac comes with two 512MB mods installed in Riser A and I buy two 2GB modules to put into Riser B - total 5GB, will the slower bandwidth (or whatever it's called) of the two 512MB mods slowing down the faster 2GB mods be offset by having RAM installed in both risers rather than pulling the 512's and only having two 2GB mods installed in Riser A only - total 4GB? The difference of 1GB of RAM doesn't seem like that part would matter if the 512 mods slow everything down.
Foxer
Mar 19, 03:41 PM
this is exactley why marketshare has dwindled for Mac, they tell you its our way ( powermac) or if you dont submit then we will cripple the Hell out of the othermacs and leave you wanting, so the worlds says screw you Apple and buys a PC with everything they want in it and makes do with a OS that is less then perfect. This is why Apples new computer sales went to 1.7% of all new sales. Apple is a dictator mini monopoly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple's biggest problem is that most of those in market aren't even aware of the Mac option, or if they are they suspect that you can't get on the internet, or use Word files, or things like that. I know this, because I was one of them only two years ago. I'm not an idiot, I was just never presented with the Mac option. Had I not wandered into the new Apple Store at the mall while waiting for my wife I may never had.
Thus, most people never get to the point of saying, "These computers aren't expandable." It is hard for people on a Mac web board to understand the average computer user, but I will site my parents. They want internet, they want to mess with music and e-mail, maybe some photo printing. Every Mac on the market can do all of this perfectly, no need to worry about expansion. Apple has to find a way to inform the public - and slipping another PowerBook onto some TV show ain't the answer, I never noticed them until I became a Mac head. I have to sit through a Dell commercial every 10 seconds, why am I not sitting through an Apple commercial - and NOT and iPod commercial. They are advertising the only product that doesn't need additional pub.
gatearray
Apr 3, 08:23 AM
You can pinch to zoom on video now? How?
Classy ad btw.
You could always pinch to zoom video on the iPad, as long as it's a video in the camera roll.
Classy ad btw.
You could always pinch to zoom video on the iPad, as long as it's a video in the camera roll.
imac_japan
Apr 2, 04:39 AM
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
You have some good points here....but the basic arguement is how to survive in the future - How to grow the business....Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, the ipod is going to have too many similar players. So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
kingtj
Aug 29, 01:06 PM
I think you hit on the key thing here! The target audience for the Mac Mini is starting to break down into 2 camps. One is the niche user who wants it for a homebrew media center setup. They like the faster, more powerful Minis - even if they cost a few hundred bucks extra.
The far larger target group, however, is the home user on a budget. The people I know who have interest in a Mini as their next computer are currently using 1-2 generation old Windows PCs that they bought used to begin with a couple years ago. They need to type letters, surf the Inet and check their email. They want to download pictures out of a digital camera and print copies, but they don't need fast 3D graphics for games. (They're the types who enjoy the little web-based games from GameHouse or PopCap, or Windows Solitaire.)
They like the promise of greater "ease of use" with OS X and a Mac, and less threat of viruses. They also like the small form-factor case, since they tend to stick their computer on a small desk or card table, as opposed to a nice computer desk purchased just for that purpose.
These people want a low price... not a "next generation CPU". I actually think it would be good if Apple could use the Mini as their system that helps them dispose of "old stock" spare parts and start selling it for a $349.95 and up price point.
Hope they bring back the $499 price point, Merom or not
The far larger target group, however, is the home user on a budget. The people I know who have interest in a Mini as their next computer are currently using 1-2 generation old Windows PCs that they bought used to begin with a couple years ago. They need to type letters, surf the Inet and check their email. They want to download pictures out of a digital camera and print copies, but they don't need fast 3D graphics for games. (They're the types who enjoy the little web-based games from GameHouse or PopCap, or Windows Solitaire.)
They like the promise of greater "ease of use" with OS X and a Mac, and less threat of viruses. They also like the small form-factor case, since they tend to stick their computer on a small desk or card table, as opposed to a nice computer desk purchased just for that purpose.
These people want a low price... not a "next generation CPU". I actually think it would be good if Apple could use the Mini as their system that helps them dispose of "old stock" spare parts and start selling it for a $349.95 and up price point.
Hope they bring back the $499 price point, Merom or not
*LTD*
Mar 25, 06:26 PM
This is cool to look at, but it's just a workaround for what should be happening... the Apple TV should run apps / play games. It's an iOS device. There's no need to get crazy with wires hanging off the side of an iPad.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
TangoCharlie
Aug 25, 05:47 AM
Both are pro-features, so it will be VERY unlikely that we will see them in the Mini.
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
NathanMuir
Mar 19, 05:52 PM
More? No. This app says that homosexuals need help, a bit like alcoholics. That is far more offensive than farts or t&m.
Hence I said 'IMO', as I was certain that some, if not most, users, such as yourself, would disagree.
Hence I said 'IMO', as I was certain that some, if not most, users, such as yourself, would disagree.
shawnce
Aug 29, 02:07 PM
The pricelist from Intel themselves (PDF). (http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf)
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc. That link is currently to the July 27th 2006 price list which was way before the merom announcement (note that no merom parts are listed). Wait until the new price list is posted...
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc. That link is currently to the July 27th 2006 price list which was way before the merom announcement (note that no merom parts are listed). Wait until the new price list is posted...
kadajawi
Oct 14, 10:49 PM
@generik: You're forgetting the much bigger and FASTER HD. I've gotten curious and tried OS X on my windows box too. To be honest it simply kills the Mini. Having 1 GB RAM over 512 MB and a nice, fast HD really helps alot. The box is much snappier, eventhough it has only an Athlon 64, no dual core like the Mini has. Of course anything that requires graphics card support won't run or runs slow, but other than that it boots much quicker, reacts faster, starts programs way faster, ... So I guess the iMac will be quite a bit faster than the Mini because of its HD.
Perhaps I'll try OS X on my Windows/Linux box with 512 MB to compare.
Ps: The Mini looks much better though :D And is so silent. And small. I like it :D But it's so painfully slow... I'm running Rosetta@Home though, that eats quite a lot of RAM. Without its zippier, until I manage to fill up the RAM (which is very easy though).
Perhaps I'll try OS X on my Windows/Linux box with 512 MB to compare.
Ps: The Mini looks much better though :D And is so silent. And small. I like it :D But it's so painfully slow... I'm running Rosetta@Home though, that eats quite a lot of RAM. Without its zippier, until I manage to fill up the RAM (which is very easy though).
cube
Mar 24, 02:30 PM
Yeah, because we all know how lovely AMD's desktop processors have been. :rolleyes: Let alone their mobile processors. The only thing they have going for them is their price. If you want a better processor, buy Sandy Bridge. If you want a better GPU, buy Llano. Stop with your unreleased AMD propaganda.
AMD Fusion is a better CPU because it does true OpenCL in the GPU, not like Intel's alpha OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
AMD Fusion is a better CPU because it does true OpenCL in the GPU, not like Intel's alpha OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
twoodcc
Dec 13, 11:31 AM
congrats to whiterabbit for 4 million points!
No comments:
Post a Comment