Bye Bye Baby
Apr 22, 01:44 PM
Been waiting to get one for a while now. :o
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
tintub
Jul 17, 07:45 AM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.
Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.
Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.
Multimedia
Jul 20, 11:27 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.I believe this is the correct analysis. I am in full agreement with Milo. Good job M. :)
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.I believe this is the correct analysis. I am in full agreement with Milo. Good job M. :)
iMikeT
Sep 9, 02:53 AM
I wonder how the 24" iMac equiped with a 2.33ghz Core 2 Duo would fare in that benchmark.
Maestro64
Oct 27, 12:43 PM
I am in favor of Greenpeace's "Green My Apple" campaign. For all of Steve Jobs' zen-attitude, vegetarianism, often-proclaimed "do the right thing" stance, and Apple's financial liquidity, there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the change and Apple isn't willing to move in the right direction with their products.
First and fore most, no other company is making an 100% recyclable product. The thing that greenpeace are holding up as the right thing is that Dell and others agree to bring the product back and keep it out of a land fill as a PC not to say it does not end up there anyway. This is only true if a consumer wishes to send it back. But if they put it in the trash it still goes to the land fill and contaminated the ground.
If the consumer sends it back, all Dell and others do is sales or turns it over to a recycular who takes out what can be recycled and sells it for what they can and those items which can not be recycle are places in US land fills or burned to ashes and put in a land fill with all the toxic chemical.
Like I said before, no one has figures out how to make products which we all are willing to buy without toxic chemicals at price you all are willing to pay.
First and fore most, no other company is making an 100% recyclable product. The thing that greenpeace are holding up as the right thing is that Dell and others agree to bring the product back and keep it out of a land fill as a PC not to say it does not end up there anyway. This is only true if a consumer wishes to send it back. But if they put it in the trash it still goes to the land fill and contaminated the ground.
If the consumer sends it back, all Dell and others do is sales or turns it over to a recycular who takes out what can be recycled and sells it for what they can and those items which can not be recycle are places in US land fills or burned to ashes and put in a land fill with all the toxic chemical.
Like I said before, no one has figures out how to make products which we all are willing to buy without toxic chemicals at price you all are willing to pay.
WildGuess
Apr 20, 10:03 AM
This is great for my alcoholic blackouts. Fire up the program and find out where I've been. Although on my last trip to San Diego it put me across the border and into a Tijuana cat house.
psionic001
Sep 14, 09:30 AM
Why wait for the iPhone when you can have this iPodesque phone!
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
marting
Mar 29, 02:30 PM
Are you suggesting that an internationally respected technology analysis firm might have more of a clue than the fans on MacRumours?
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
tortoise
Sep 20, 02:40 PM
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
caspersoong
Apr 15, 02:44 AM
This is most unfortunate. Now that TB is a reality, it would be far better if Intel just kills USB 3.0 completely as fast as possible. There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point. With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold. It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
I must say I completely agree. We should stop looking at the past and move on.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
I must say I completely agree. We should stop looking at the past and move on.
2nyRiggz
Sep 13, 09:17 PM
Its an ipod with a longer screen and a slider.....well at least for me I see nothing too interesting in it...just another ipod you can talk to.
Still neat though.
Bless
Still neat though.
Bless
tsugaru
Mar 22, 04:03 PM
Is it necessary these days? Back in 1999 it was still difficult days to just get video going at a good rate. These days it isn't hard to get good graphics.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
Not everyone wants a GPU for graphics. Some want it for games. Some want it for CUDA/OpenCL. Some want it for future proofing (kind of an oxymoron with a Mac, but that's another story.)
Apple has been pushing the 'good enough' mantra on iOS users for a while now. Specs aren't the greatest, but it's good enough and the software does well. It doesn't always work that way in (real) computers. There are always customers who want/need a bit more.
And not redundant graphics. I had meant Apple should be doing the latest and greatest again regarding their GPUs, like they did way way way back when. I should have just typed it all out. I'm in a slight food induced coma now.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
Not everyone wants a GPU for graphics. Some want it for games. Some want it for CUDA/OpenCL. Some want it for future proofing (kind of an oxymoron with a Mac, but that's another story.)
Apple has been pushing the 'good enough' mantra on iOS users for a while now. Specs aren't the greatest, but it's good enough and the software does well. It doesn't always work that way in (real) computers. There are always customers who want/need a bit more.
And not redundant graphics. I had meant Apple should be doing the latest and greatest again regarding their GPUs, like they did way way way back when. I should have just typed it all out. I'm in a slight food induced coma now.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:27 AM
Looking at that image now, I can't believe Samsung missed the opportunity to slap the silhouette of a half-eaten pear on the back. LOL
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
Ingot
Mar 22, 03:11 PM
Balls! I just bought a new 27in iMac like 3-4 weeks ago! Oh well, I have been wanting replace my PC with a mac for like over a year, and I love it.
I agree! I love my ibeast fully loaded except for only 8 gb of ram. Sandy bridge will blow it out of the water. Sigh...
I agree! I love my ibeast fully loaded except for only 8 gb of ram. Sandy bridge will blow it out of the water. Sigh...
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
using the keyboard, how quaint
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
aloshka
Mar 29, 01:01 PM
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
Actually there is still annoyances with that. While you can run two instances of Excel they still use a weird MDI interface if you are just double clicking to open files. A nightmare if you have dual monitors, and still not fixed in Office 2010.
Actually there is still annoyances with that. While you can run two instances of Excel they still use a weird MDI interface if you are just double clicking to open files. A nightmare if you have dual monitors, and still not fixed in Office 2010.
bousozoku
Aug 24, 08:35 PM
In any case, it's over and the accessories market will have another player.
Apple can add the $100 mn expense to their stock options mess, which should produce some very ugly financial statements. However, never having to worry about Creative again is a good thing.
It's not cheap but it's a sound investment in keeping their iPod business solid. If Creative go after iRiver, Archos, or anyone else, it will also help Apple indirectly.
Apple can add the $100 mn expense to their stock options mess, which should produce some very ugly financial statements. However, never having to worry about Creative again is a good thing.
It's not cheap but it's a sound investment in keeping their iPod business solid. If Creative go after iRiver, Archos, or anyone else, it will also help Apple indirectly.
appleguy
Sep 5, 04:30 PM
Steve's debuting a new series of "I'm a Mac" TV ads
:P
"I'm a Mac" the movie 2hrs of a abuse hearled at PC users
:P
"I'm a Mac" the movie 2hrs of a abuse hearled at PC users
tylerdurden03
Mar 23, 06:52 PM
Constitution says you need probable cause to get stopped, so the government disregards the constitution and ALSO says you cannot have an app sharing the information? Why bother when the sheeple will lay down and accept...
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
LightSpeed1
Apr 24, 10:56 PM
Awesome.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 06:20 PM
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.
macman2790
Sep 6, 03:01 AM
Perfect. That works for me 'cause if Apple doesn't present a redesigned MBP with an easy access HD Bay, I'm definitely going C2D MacBook. Already "bought" a pair of 2.5" external USB 2 cases today - for FREE after rebate - in anticipation of removing the stock drive and replacing it with a Seagate 160. :)
Same here if it happens to just be a processor upgrade without adding some of the needed features
Same here if it happens to just be a processor upgrade without adding some of the needed features
grahamnp
May 4, 05:03 AM
I just realised that the 6750 and 6770 only have 512MB of RAM compared to the 1GB of the 6750 in the MBP. The iMac is also using a mobile version of the card so the difference is even stranger given that the iMac has a lot more pixels and therefore more need of the extra VRAM.
