lkrupp
Apr 26, 02:26 PM
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
Baloney on so many levels. Apple doesn't need to be like Android to succeed unless you define success as market share. Market share means nothing if you have the margins like Apple does. Fake Steve Jobs (Dan Lyons) said it best last year. To paraphrase, "In three years Android will be huge but we will still have the better business." And if you want to equate market share to developer interest, well, there are articles all over today announcing that developer interest in Android is waning because of fragmentation and tablets while interest in iOS is rising.
So what's better? More people using your product than the other guy's or having sustainable growth and good profits year in and year out?
Baloney on so many levels. Apple doesn't need to be like Android to succeed unless you define success as market share. Market share means nothing if you have the margins like Apple does. Fake Steve Jobs (Dan Lyons) said it best last year. To paraphrase, "In three years Android will be huge but we will still have the better business." And if you want to equate market share to developer interest, well, there are articles all over today announcing that developer interest in Android is waning because of fragmentation and tablets while interest in iOS is rising.
So what's better? More people using your product than the other guy's or having sustainable growth and good profits year in and year out?
jayducharme
Apr 5, 01:24 PM
Jail break is legal for personal use. Corporate use of jail break may be another thing altogether.
But Toyota wasn't jailbreaking. Didn't the courts rule that Apple couldn't stop the jailbreak community?
But Toyota wasn't jailbreaking. Didn't the courts rule that Apple couldn't stop the jailbreak community?
benedetti
May 7, 11:44 AM
There must be a catch, like...
"free with Mac OSX 10.7" (?)
"free with Mac OSX 10.7" (?)
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Chundles
Aug 3, 12:23 AM
There is a field report I can't find the link now. From New York on Airplane, Yonah PC battery died over Chicago while same size Merom PC battery made it all the way to LA. So I am RIGHT NOT WRONG. :eek:
Wow, measuring battery life by cities. Sounds amazingly scientific. I'm gonna say "You're wrong" just because you cited such a field report. That's disgraceful... :o
Wow, measuring battery life by cities. Sounds amazingly scientific. I'm gonna say "You're wrong" just because you cited such a field report. That's disgraceful... :o
azilnik
Aug 2, 09:56 PM
Hm. Hey guys... I'm a longtime reader of MR. I always read your comments and never recall posting (Creepy, eh?)
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.
macindork
Apr 23, 12:22 AM
Direct Attached Storage is a pain to manage : "Hey, XY server needs more storage space... oh wait, the array is full, we need to purchase a new array for it... too bad we can't use YZ's array which only has 2 bays occupied...".
Centralized storage arrays with LUNs solves all of these issues. Running out of storage ? Present a new LUN and just plug it in to whatever volume manager you use and grow your existing filesystem, all with 0 downtime or even having to physically connect anything to the box.
For data centers, Thunderbolt is a non-contender.
That's the nice thing about the equallogic, right? ;)
Only issue I currently have with throughput is being limited by 4gigs when there are 30 some odd VMs running in our 3 host cluster. I would love to be fiber channel but between state budget cuts and PITA systems guy it ain't happening.
On thunderbolt though, I truly believe it will be a non-starter. Sure, it's cool for those of us that know about it but people in general won't know and won't really care either way. Honestly, consumers should already be above 10Gbps because the physical hardware is already there, just a matter of market elasticity.
Centralized storage arrays with LUNs solves all of these issues. Running out of storage ? Present a new LUN and just plug it in to whatever volume manager you use and grow your existing filesystem, all with 0 downtime or even having to physically connect anything to the box.
For data centers, Thunderbolt is a non-contender.
That's the nice thing about the equallogic, right? ;)
Only issue I currently have with throughput is being limited by 4gigs when there are 30 some odd VMs running in our 3 host cluster. I would love to be fiber channel but between state budget cuts and PITA systems guy it ain't happening.
On thunderbolt though, I truly believe it will be a non-starter. Sure, it's cool for those of us that know about it but people in general won't know and won't really care either way. Honestly, consumers should already be above 10Gbps because the physical hardware is already there, just a matter of market elasticity.
gnasher729
Apr 25, 09:58 AM
Is there a link to a site showing that Google logs the tracking info on their servers?
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
It finds my router within 150 meters. This is something that should _not_ be possible. Apple claims that it is not possible to access the location data on their servers, unless you are an iPhone asking for its location. So you should only be able to get the location of WiFi base stations nearby - but you know their location anyway.
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
It's not about cell towers, it is about Wifi base stations. And it is not about _your_ location, it is about the location of these WiFi base stations.
that is the point that apple is critizised for. this is a gaping security hole! nobody has claimed apple is using this information for malicious purposes.
however Steve answered the question if apple is tracking users. a classic strawman.
Give us a realistic scenario where this would be an actually security problem. Where a person can access your phone, and has the time to extract this data without being noticed, finds places where you have been, uses this information to hurt you, and could not get this information or hurt you in another way. That's the important thing: It is only a risk if that information, and nothing else, allows someone to hurt you.
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
It finds my router within 150 meters. This is something that should _not_ be possible. Apple claims that it is not possible to access the location data on their servers, unless you are an iPhone asking for its location. So you should only be able to get the location of WiFi base stations nearby - but you know their location anyway.
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
It's not about cell towers, it is about Wifi base stations. And it is not about _your_ location, it is about the location of these WiFi base stations.
that is the point that apple is critizised for. this is a gaping security hole! nobody has claimed apple is using this information for malicious purposes.
however Steve answered the question if apple is tracking users. a classic strawman.
Give us a realistic scenario where this would be an actually security problem. Where a person can access your phone, and has the time to extract this data without being noticed, finds places where you have been, uses this information to hurt you, and could not get this information or hurt you in another way. That's the important thing: It is only a risk if that information, and nothing else, allows someone to hurt you.
tpavur
Apr 21, 08:31 PM
Yet another sign Apple is going to kill the Mac Pro.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
iCrizzo
Mar 27, 10:07 AM
iOS 5 in the fall is a good thing, at least we know we will be getting some major changes, plus I don't mind waiting for a finished product!
jericho878
Sep 15, 04:32 PM
2.16 and 2.33 Merom options
Magnetic latch
MacBook style keyboard
New video card (Nvidia?)
160GB hard drive option
IMO, these are the least that Apple can do to keep up with other high performance notebooks in the market. I think new MBP's will arrive one the same day as Photokina although they may not be highlighted at the event.
Magnetic latch
MacBook style keyboard
New video card (Nvidia?)
160GB hard drive option
IMO, these are the least that Apple can do to keep up with other high performance notebooks in the market. I think new MBP's will arrive one the same day as Photokina although they may not be highlighted at the event.
osxgrad
Apr 20, 03:09 AM
from 3gs - iphone 4 it's been only offering a 16-32gig model. I won't upgrade until there's a 64 gig version so i can cary all my music for bluetooth audio in my car and I have no intention of relying on a cloud operation where I could loose signal. Besides between my new maxed out 11" air and iphone4 i'm set for a while
24" imac 2.8ghz 1 Terabyte, 11" maxed out air, apple tv 160 gig, iP4, airplay 3 rooms
24" imac 2.8ghz 1 Terabyte, 11" maxed out air, apple tv 160 gig, iP4, airplay 3 rooms
McGiord
Apr 10, 07:03 PM
Here is the outcome in Numbers.
SiliconAddict
Nov 26, 02:58 PM
Simple...it's NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
God I'm so sick of people making this excuse. So just because no one else has found the right formula it means that Apple can't right?
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Lol. I totally forgot about the origami. What a flop!
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
God I'm so sick of people making this excuse. So just because no one else has found the right formula it means that Apple can't right?
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Lol. I totally forgot about the origami. What a flop!
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
gkarris
Mar 26, 10:24 PM
But what's this about an iPad 3? I find that very hard to believe, since Apple clearly said that 2011 will be the Year of the iPad 2.
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
wjlafrance
May 6, 12:13 AM
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
This might actually happen..
This might actually happen..
Nuvi
Nov 6, 04:36 PM
OK so for the slower people why would you separate the GPS unit and mount when it is being used on a day to day basis? The TomTom mounts are so slim and there is no other use for the unit so there is no point to separate the two for storage. The iPhone is mainly a phone and i would need to separate the two on a regular basis.
The entry level TomTom units have the slim dock but the more advance ones have the bulky active dock / or non active but still bulky ;) (5x0 - 9x0 series). There is no way you would want to carry around the more advanced units attached to the dock but if you can just leave the dock sticking on your windshield then this is not a problem.
Anyway, iPhone has one undeniable advantage over the stand alone units and thats the ability to choose the software. However, the screen on iPhone is small and the features will probably never be par with high end stand alone units.
The entry level TomTom units have the slim dock but the more advance ones have the bulky active dock / or non active but still bulky ;) (5x0 - 9x0 series). There is no way you would want to carry around the more advanced units attached to the dock but if you can just leave the dock sticking on your windshield then this is not a problem.
Anyway, iPhone has one undeniable advantage over the stand alone units and thats the ability to choose the software. However, the screen on iPhone is small and the features will probably never be par with high end stand alone units.
artpease
Sep 11, 01:19 AM
"Clearly, Apple has invented some hyperspace technology that lets you fit a DVD into an iPod"
No, no...the DVD is there because the new vPod is also the remote for the new vExpress...now how cool is that! :cool:
No, no...the DVD is there because the new vPod is also the remote for the new vExpress...now how cool is that! :cool:
kcroy
Jul 29, 10:19 PM
I will now be picturing Steve Jobs answering that phone during his Keynote in my dreams. :)
NinjaHERO
Apr 25, 10:27 AM
Since only I can access the info, who cares?
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
neko girl
May 6, 01:57 AM
Why not move their iOS hardware to Intel now that Samsung seems to be losing their ability to respect their own customer's IP? Intel would have no motivation to co-opt Apple IP (Intel doesn't build products), and they have the most sophisticated fab technology on earth.
Ah, standby power you say?
If Apple moves their Macs away from Intel that'll encourage a lot of Mac users including myself to consider switching to buying Windows machines. Boot Camp is an important Mac feature and Intel processors are the best.
Windows 8 will work on ARM, as Microsoft has said.. current builds already do, apparently.
Ah, standby power you say?
If Apple moves their Macs away from Intel that'll encourage a lot of Mac users including myself to consider switching to buying Windows machines. Boot Camp is an important Mac feature and Intel processors are the best.
Windows 8 will work on ARM, as Microsoft has said.. current builds already do, apparently.
Popeye206
Apr 20, 08:10 AM
Damn it. That means I'll always have to upgrade my iPhone every September. So, I'll buy the iPhone 5 this September, then I'll upgrade next September for the iPhone 6 with a 4inch screen and 4G :D; but, is there a limited time window in which you upgrade, because I don't want to lose out 2 months of texts / calls / internet (if I upgrade in July 2012).
Well... the iPhone 6 will probably be our last iPhone anyway. :eek:
The end of the world is coming in December 2012 remember? :p
Well... the iPhone 6 will probably be our last iPhone anyway. :eek:
The end of the world is coming in December 2012 remember? :p
StyxMaker
Apr 20, 11:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
SLCentral
Aug 2, 06:20 PM
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).