Hype2k2
Mar 26, 09:30 PM
At least, according to TechCrunch, it is.
Why am I not surprised there?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/ios-5-likely-pushed-to-the-fall-after-a-cloud-unveiling-at-wwdc/
Speculation.
Why am I not surprised there?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/ios-5-likely-pushed-to-the-fall-after-a-cloud-unveiling-at-wwdc/
Speculation.
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.)
altecXP
Mar 30, 10:52 PM
I don't know why but my MBP 13 i7 2011 is showing "Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB graphics" on the About this mac screen on Display tab.:eek:
BTW I'm using an External Display.
Maybe becase thats your GPU?
BTW I'm using an External Display.
Maybe becase thats your GPU?
Eldiablojoe
May 4, 08:59 PM
I'm going to go wayyyyyy out on the proverbial limb here and suggest that since mscriv knows the full map at the outset of the game, that he's going to pretty much lay traps or monsters in each or every other room we enter- especially the ones where there is only one door for us to enter into another room.
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
LoganT
Mar 28, 11:01 AM
Maybe iOS 5 will make current iPhones feel like a completely new device.
guzhogi
Mar 31, 08:58 AM
By separating Server from Lion client, I believe Apple will now pursue the Microsoft line of OS marketing...
We'll have Lion Home Premium (no Server) plus Lion Professional (with Server) and also you can buy Lion Ultimate (32 or 64 bit with or without Server and a new disk encryption facility)
Users of Snow Leopard will be able to upgrade to Lion Home Premium and/or Lion Profession without moving data, unless the data needs to be encrypted by copying to a Lion Ultimate (32 bit only edition) via the 64 bit Lion Home Premium or Professional without passwords and/or data...
Microsoft - Making things Simple�
In every release of Mac OS X, there have been a separate client & server editions, so this is nothing new. Not sure why Apple bundled the 2 together for preview 1.
We'll have Lion Home Premium (no Server) plus Lion Professional (with Server) and also you can buy Lion Ultimate (32 or 64 bit with or without Server and a new disk encryption facility)
Users of Snow Leopard will be able to upgrade to Lion Home Premium and/or Lion Profession without moving data, unless the data needs to be encrypted by copying to a Lion Ultimate (32 bit only edition) via the 64 bit Lion Home Premium or Professional without passwords and/or data...
Microsoft - Making things Simple�
In every release of Mac OS X, there have been a separate client & server editions, so this is nothing new. Not sure why Apple bundled the 2 together for preview 1.
TheBobcat
Nov 27, 08:37 AM
I just really haven't seen a compelling reason to spend the money for a tablet PC/Mac.
"You can write on it! And Take Notes!" Yeah...and? I can also spend 50 cents on a notebook and write on that too! Besides, I can type faster than I can write.
"Home automation!" Maybe, if I made over $300,000 a year and could afford the smugness of turning my lights on and off with a computer as opposed to a light switch.
I feel that a tablet to most people is just a giant PDA, and I really don't see myself using it for any other reason than that. I know there are business reasons to have tablets, like for nurses, or production people, etc., but for the average person, what's the revolution? Too much money for too little IMO.
An Apple PDA with a mobile OSX? Now we're talkin'.
"You can write on it! And Take Notes!" Yeah...and? I can also spend 50 cents on a notebook and write on that too! Besides, I can type faster than I can write.
"Home automation!" Maybe, if I made over $300,000 a year and could afford the smugness of turning my lights on and off with a computer as opposed to a light switch.
I feel that a tablet to most people is just a giant PDA, and I really don't see myself using it for any other reason than that. I know there are business reasons to have tablets, like for nurses, or production people, etc., but for the average person, what's the revolution? Too much money for too little IMO.
An Apple PDA with a mobile OSX? Now we're talkin'.
caspersoong
Apr 8, 07:05 AM
The idea here is that NO ONE else was even considering making a tablet until Apple, and the iPad. They didn't want to be left behind like they were with the iPhone, so now everyone's jumping on board. It's RIM'S fault for not coming to market sooner with a tablet. You can thank Apple for creating the current modern day tablet. Everyone says apple needs competition to keep them from getting stagnant as a company, but they didn't need it when producing the iPod, or the iPhone, and they certainly didn't need it for the iPad. No ones fault but their own that they aren't smart enough to innovate like Apple.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
mmomega
May 4, 02:52 PM
I would hope that creating a bootable DVD/flash drive would be part of the installation process.
How is it handled now for developers with the Lion preview?
So far you must enter a redemption code in the app store which allows you to download Lion.
If you want to install it on multiple computers you can copy the install file to another Mac but it needs to use the same app store account info.
I haven't found a way to burn or make it bootable since they don't offer a full dmg file on the developer page like they did with SL.
How is it handled now for developers with the Lion preview?
So far you must enter a redemption code in the app store which allows you to download Lion.
If you want to install it on multiple computers you can copy the install file to another Mac but it needs to use the same app store account info.
I haven't found a way to burn or make it bootable since they don't offer a full dmg file on the developer page like they did with SL.
greatm31
Aug 3, 12:56 PM
Has Apple EVER released any consumer products at WWDC? It sounds like some people are going to be in for a real dissapointment when no iphone comes out. I thought they were trying to transition from releases at big conferences anyway.
MacNut
May 3, 06:57 PM
I don't see us ever switching.
iris_failsafe
Jul 21, 08:27 PM
It seems Intel is always on time or ahead g schedule, does anyone miss Motorola or IBM?
I don't
I don't
Tilpots
May 7, 01:46 PM
Is the size of Apple's NC Data Center overkill for just delivering MobileMe services? Or is that the type of facility they would need to bring it in-house with current subscribers?
Sky Blue
Mar 31, 08:37 AM
Would be nice to see some intelligent posts on here in line with the topic.
Not at MacRumors.
Not at MacRumors.
maclaptop
Apr 20, 08:00 AM
1) This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date.
2) Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
1) You're right but it still reminds me of Antennagate, and Jobs wise ass comment.
So I'll have fun with a Galaxy S2 while the gullible remain in denial.
2) My aren't you perfect.
Now you've backed yourself into a corner and loaded up on bad karma.
The next time you hear glass shatter, you'll know what it is... :)
2) Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
1) You're right but it still reminds me of Antennagate, and Jobs wise ass comment.
So I'll have fun with a Galaxy S2 while the gullible remain in denial.
2) My aren't you perfect.
Now you've backed yourself into a corner and loaded up on bad karma.
The next time you hear glass shatter, you'll know what it is... :)
ticman
Nov 20, 09:02 AM
LOL ok ok so it's WCLYFEE sorry
hawkeye23
Nov 5, 03:21 PM
So i assume you will be carrying the TomTom mount and iPhone as one piece at all times? :rolleyes:
Of course. Thats what the fanny pack is for.
Of course. Thats what the fanny pack is for.
PlipPlop
Apr 18, 03:38 PM
Apple scared of the competition and trying to sue them.
ricksbrain
Nov 26, 10:56 AM
But tablets are always marketed for business types. A home-centric tablet might have some legs-- especially if Apple goes the home automation route.
Dare to dream... :rolleyes:
Dare to dream... :rolleyes:
wd89
Apr 23, 04:24 PM
I hope this means an increase in resolution of iTunes artwork. I know it's unrelated to the OS but one can hope!
jav6454
May 3, 12:56 PM
Too involved for me at this moment. I'll pass; although I have to admit the game sounds pretty interesting. RPG FTW!
tmofee
Mar 30, 08:57 AM
US only? pity. i think it's a great idea to offer free bandwidth for the albums you buy on there, it's a shame there's no way of being able to check the previous albums you bought for and add them to the list as well.
personally I have rhapsody and anubis hooked up now. i can stream music to the sonos when i get home and download songs to the rhapsody app. do i OWN these tracks? blah blah, it does the job for me when i want to listen to new stuff I dont already own, or cant be bothered finding in the cupboards :P
personally I have rhapsody and anubis hooked up now. i can stream music to the sonos when i get home and download songs to the rhapsody app. do i OWN these tracks? blah blah, it does the job for me when i want to listen to new stuff I dont already own, or cant be bothered finding in the cupboards :P
dukebound85
Apr 10, 02:40 AM
Should you distribute first?
48/2(9+3)
2(9+3)=18+6=24
48/24=2
no you do this....
1) (9+3)=12
2) 48/2=24
3) 24*12=288
Multiplication does NOT take precedence over division
48/2(9+3)
2(9+3)=18+6=24
48/24=2
no you do this....
1) (9+3)=12
2) 48/2=24
3) 24*12=288
Multiplication does NOT take precedence over division
Eidorian
Aug 4, 10:55 AM
Give me a break. People voted negative on this because they are waiting on merom MBPs and now think that, contrary to they're hopes and prayers the past few weeks, that the Merom MBP revisions wont be out until september. This is no clandestine PC-clone smear campaign. who's it going to effect? This forum is full of the faithful, messing around here isn't going to change national opinion of Microsoft or apple products. It's not Steve Ballmer twisting his handlebar mustaches as he chortles to himself, going from one article to the next, voting negative at each. Let's get real here.You sir are correct.