DeathChill
Apr 20, 08:50 AM
You and I are thinking alike.
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
I am extremely impressed with your ability to be disappointed with a product that hasn't been announced and we know nothing about.
Also, hasn't the iPhone 4 been the best selling iPhone ever?
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
I am extremely impressed with your ability to be disappointed with a product that hasn't been announced and we know nothing about.
Also, hasn't the iPhone 4 been the best selling iPhone ever?
ticman
Dec 12, 10:46 AM
LOL I made my decision and am not looking back. Very happy with my setup but I find I am getting a hissing noise when hooked up using car speakers for playing music. It's a new cable and I have no idea if it's the car connection; the car kit; or the cable.
Keep me posted re ETA of BLT dock
Keep me posted re ETA of BLT dock
slu
Aug 7, 03:12 PM
Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
They can. It is called an iMac, and the 17 incher with 2 GB of RAM and a 25o GB HDD goes for $1674.00
They can. It is called an iMac, and the 17 incher with 2 GB of RAM and a 25o GB HDD goes for $1674.00
jonnysods
Mar 28, 10:21 AM
Wow, I can't see this happening. There is too much momentum for them to wait 2 years in between phones. They will release a 4GS!
nuckinfutz
May 7, 10:53 AM
We all remember the internal meeting Jobs held discussing how Google was in effect 'declaring war on Apple' by invading their "mobile" turf; what if this is Apple reciprocating. Offering similar options to Gmail for free and attempting to complement MobileMe with iAds in an attempt to unthrone Google. With the high hopes Apple has for iAds (as suggested by the rumors regarding the high developer pricing of iAds) it does make sense, and in the very least, try to hurt Google. Another intriguing question is: would Apple loyalists prefer Apple service over another as long as the quality is acceptable (perhaps even if the quality was less than the options, at first).
Apple has been doing this stuff since .mac so they've been on the turf for a while. iAds is not gonna be a part of the equation. Apple's building a huge datacenter in NC and with free Mobileme it gives developers a "no brainer" incentive to use Mobileme for their OTA sync. Wifi sync does nothing but irritate the user IMO.
This isn't about hurting Google this is about taking the next leap forward in computing by melding cloud services with mobile and desktop computing
Why not just make it a $20 product instead of giving it away for no profit?
Because Free always has better uptake as witnessed by the legions of people that let Google scrape their emails and other data to provide targeted ads. These people actually perceive this as being "Free" when in fact you're letting Google profit handsomely off your data.
Apple has been doing this stuff since .mac so they've been on the turf for a while. iAds is not gonna be a part of the equation. Apple's building a huge datacenter in NC and with free Mobileme it gives developers a "no brainer" incentive to use Mobileme for their OTA sync. Wifi sync does nothing but irritate the user IMO.
This isn't about hurting Google this is about taking the next leap forward in computing by melding cloud services with mobile and desktop computing
Why not just make it a $20 product instead of giving it away for no profit?
Because Free always has better uptake as witnessed by the legions of people that let Google scrape their emails and other data to provide targeted ads. These people actually perceive this as being "Free" when in fact you're letting Google profit handsomely off your data.
AforAndromeda
Nov 12, 11:10 AM
I've never heard of this company -- are they reputable, does anyone know? I've heard all sorts of stories abut these types of things being spyware or some such, don't want to pollute my Mac with any of that garbage!
Just a quick message.
I am not connected with Sophos in any way. Really.:) .....
It may be that many people outside of the UK have not heard of them.
'Largeist' firm, and well established. Lots of integrity and their Tech bullitins/blogs are quite helpful.
I've used Sophos from the 90's. It was one of the first to give a free monthly trial that worked on NT3.5.
I noticed that it's location was near me in the UK.
For me, it is particularly useful for network administrators as the deployment is graphically useful and easy. Their tech support is quick to answer by phone.
Even now as a mainly home user with 3 PC computers, Ive had 15 good experiences of incidences of asking questions/emails and dealing with samples.
I've even questioned twice in 7 years with them whether a 'true' a/v package is worthwhile on a Mac.
Don't take my word for it.
Check the last 20 years...
Interesting..
Especially some comparisons with Norton...
cheers:cool:
Just a quick message.
I am not connected with Sophos in any way. Really.:) .....
It may be that many people outside of the UK have not heard of them.
'Largeist' firm, and well established. Lots of integrity and their Tech bullitins/blogs are quite helpful.
I've used Sophos from the 90's. It was one of the first to give a free monthly trial that worked on NT3.5.
I noticed that it's location was near me in the UK.
For me, it is particularly useful for network administrators as the deployment is graphically useful and easy. Their tech support is quick to answer by phone.
Even now as a mainly home user with 3 PC computers, Ive had 15 good experiences of incidences of asking questions/emails and dealing with samples.
I've even questioned twice in 7 years with them whether a 'true' a/v package is worthwhile on a Mac.
Don't take my word for it.
Check the last 20 years...
Interesting..
Especially some comparisons with Norton...
cheers:cool:
toddybody
Apr 25, 10:05 AM
Hes not acting like a dick, he's just worried because of what hes heard.
I know your email to Steve would begin with "Your Royal Appleness" and end with "Your faithful Man-Servant"
The man has heard his phone is tracking his location, and is naturally, entitled to be worried.
Sorry *LTD* (Since I actually like you alot)...
But that comment is hilarious. :D
I know your email to Steve would begin with "Your Royal Appleness" and end with "Your faithful Man-Servant"
The man has heard his phone is tracking his location, and is naturally, entitled to be worried.
Sorry *LTD* (Since I actually like you alot)...
But that comment is hilarious. :D
illegalprelude
Aug 4, 08:53 PM
DO you guys think the Mac MINI will get a speed bump anytime soon? A friend of mine, shes looking to come over to the Mac side and the MINI seems perfect for her needs but something faster would be nice then the current.
Jett0516
Mar 28, 12:38 PM
I think the reason why there is no new iphone this year is because maybe apple wants to come out with both at&t and verizone iphone at the same time next year. which would be less of a headache for both carrier and fans.
Eidorian
Jul 21, 10:10 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/MeromUh, thank you? :rolleyes:
MorphingDragon
May 6, 06:25 AM
"ARM tumbles ahead of Intel 'breakthrough'", May 4 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/8493555/ARM-tumbles-ahead-of-Intel-breakthrough.html)
I'm aware of that, but the last time Intel promised ground breaking CPU technology we ended up with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D series.
I'm aware of that, but the last time Intel promised ground breaking CPU technology we ended up with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D series.
VicMacs
Apr 25, 09:21 AM
Genius, I say.
dXTC
Mar 29, 02:08 PM
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)
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip? :D However, it would be rather neat to have the nanobots vibrate the eardrums and cilia directly. That would get rid of those annoying headphone cables once and for all.
But we digress...
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip? :D However, it would be rather neat to have the nanobots vibrate the eardrums and cilia directly. That would get rid of those annoying headphone cables once and for all.
But we digress...
snberk103
May 5, 10:34 AM
About as meaningful as the need to figure out one third of 13/16.
How about a quarter of 3" 13/16? Which I regularly need to do when cutting photo matts? Yes - I would round the 13/16 down to 12/16, no wait that's really 3/4. Except that for my equipment it's better to round up. And rounding it to 14/16 is not really better. And 16/16 introduces too big an error. Now I suggest to photographers they buy European made matt cutters - for the measurement scale.
Keystroke for keystroke, just the way you did it, except substitute the fraction symbol for the apostrophe and quote symbols you used for feet and inches. I own several calculators, and they'll all do this.
So you'd enter " 3/ 7 13/16// " Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny here.
We own a couple of basic calculators, and of course there's Google's search bar calculator. Google is actually pretty good, but I think I would need to decimalize the fraction first....
Now I am trying to be funny. When I typed "(3ft 7in)/3" into Google to see what happens, I got "(3 ft 7 in) / 3 = 36.4066667 centimeters". Even Google is metric! I tried it with the fractional inch too, but Google wouldn't calculate that. Apparently Google also doesn't like fractions of an inch.
How about a quarter of 3" 13/16? Which I regularly need to do when cutting photo matts? Yes - I would round the 13/16 down to 12/16, no wait that's really 3/4. Except that for my equipment it's better to round up. And rounding it to 14/16 is not really better. And 16/16 introduces too big an error. Now I suggest to photographers they buy European made matt cutters - for the measurement scale.
Keystroke for keystroke, just the way you did it, except substitute the fraction symbol for the apostrophe and quote symbols you used for feet and inches. I own several calculators, and they'll all do this.
So you'd enter " 3/ 7 13/16// " Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny here.
We own a couple of basic calculators, and of course there's Google's search bar calculator. Google is actually pretty good, but I think I would need to decimalize the fraction first....
Now I am trying to be funny. When I typed "(3ft 7in)/3" into Google to see what happens, I got "(3 ft 7 in) / 3 = 36.4066667 centimeters". Even Google is metric! I tried it with the fractional inch too, but Google wouldn't calculate that. Apparently Google also doesn't like fractions of an inch.
jonharris200
Jul 21, 02:28 PM
At this rate, I'll never buy another Mac for fear it'll be out of date tomorrow! :eek:
Multimedia
Jul 22, 04:30 PM
I would really like to see Apple have a laptop cheaper than $1,100, and I think there would be a definite market for the, especially for teenagers looking into getting a Mac. I know that's unlikely, but...
Anyways I hope that the MBPs get the processor update (and a new enclosure) very soon and I really hope the MBs and Mac Minis follow soon after.
I don't get any reason for Apple not too, and I think with Intel it would be possible for Apple to get some cheaper computers out there. It would be nice, but seems unlikely.... *sighs*Refub 1.83GHz MacBooks Are Only $949.
Anyways I hope that the MBPs get the processor update (and a new enclosure) very soon and I really hope the MBs and Mac Minis follow soon after.
I don't get any reason for Apple not too, and I think with Intel it would be possible for Apple to get some cheaper computers out there. It would be nice, but seems unlikely.... *sighs*Refub 1.83GHz MacBooks Are Only $949.
Popeye206
Apr 25, 10:34 AM
"We don't track anyone." probably true, but he forgot to say the rest of the phrase. :)
...the file is there if the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever needs it.
And they can get the same data from AT&T or Verizon from tower pings.
Don't you watch CSI? :p
...the file is there if the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever needs it.
And they can get the same data from AT&T or Verizon from tower pings.
Don't you watch CSI? :p
belsokar
Apr 26, 02:37 PM
You'll care when the majority of developers will jump to Android because it has more users. Why do you think most people still use Windows? Because it has more software. Once you get behind, it's tough to keep up. Look at Windows Phone 7. They have to pull really hard to get some developers to build apps for them.
I have to say I'm impressed how Google managed to get this off the ground so fast. Microsoft is still struggling, and they have a pool of traditional .Net developers behind them to potentially build apps for their mobile platform.
As an iOS developer, with both a Java and .Net background, I can say that right now, all the money to be made is primarily in the iOS camp. Android users DO NOT BUY apps. That is a generalization, but it is a TRUE generalization. They do not buy apps like iPhone users. There are many reasons for that. One is that many Android users got free or really cheap phones, and don't tend to come from higher income backgrounds. They are less likely to spend money than iPhone users. Moreover, the infrastructure for buying apps is not setup as well as iPhone. All iPhone users can buy apps the second they are setup, that is not true for Android users.
In terms of monetizing free Android apps...they do not pay well when it comes to Ad revenue. For a client's app I released on an iPhone, using iAds, I needed 10,000 daily users at about 1 minute of use time per user per day to make about $5K/month in Ad revenue. In order to get that kind of revenue on a free Android app, I would need approximately 200,000 daily users. That is a huge discrepancy between ecosystems,...it is not easy to get 10,000 daily users, much less 200,000,...meaning developers are going to stick with iOS as long as it pays better.
So for the time being, I don't concern myself with Android as a developer. Now if google finds a way to make Android phones just as profitable as iPhones, or develops an ecosystem much like Apple's that drives app purchases and app revenue to something resembling, or outpacing Apple, then I would be REALLY worried as an iPhone developer and user. I just don't see it happening as Google is more concerned with it's own Ad business, and how to make Google more money, rather than spending more time and effort on how to best make developers money. Apple has struck a great balance that allows them to keep developers happy while continuing to reap the rewards in terms of company profits.
I have to say I'm impressed how Google managed to get this off the ground so fast. Microsoft is still struggling, and they have a pool of traditional .Net developers behind them to potentially build apps for their mobile platform.
As an iOS developer, with both a Java and .Net background, I can say that right now, all the money to be made is primarily in the iOS camp. Android users DO NOT BUY apps. That is a generalization, but it is a TRUE generalization. They do not buy apps like iPhone users. There are many reasons for that. One is that many Android users got free or really cheap phones, and don't tend to come from higher income backgrounds. They are less likely to spend money than iPhone users. Moreover, the infrastructure for buying apps is not setup as well as iPhone. All iPhone users can buy apps the second they are setup, that is not true for Android users.
In terms of monetizing free Android apps...they do not pay well when it comes to Ad revenue. For a client's app I released on an iPhone, using iAds, I needed 10,000 daily users at about 1 minute of use time per user per day to make about $5K/month in Ad revenue. In order to get that kind of revenue on a free Android app, I would need approximately 200,000 daily users. That is a huge discrepancy between ecosystems,...it is not easy to get 10,000 daily users, much less 200,000,...meaning developers are going to stick with iOS as long as it pays better.
So for the time being, I don't concern myself with Android as a developer. Now if google finds a way to make Android phones just as profitable as iPhones, or develops an ecosystem much like Apple's that drives app purchases and app revenue to something resembling, or outpacing Apple, then I would be REALLY worried as an iPhone developer and user. I just don't see it happening as Google is more concerned with it's own Ad business, and how to make Google more money, rather than spending more time and effort on how to best make developers money. Apple has struck a great balance that allows them to keep developers happy while continuing to reap the rewards in terms of company profits.
AppleDroid
May 6, 01:05 AM
Intel has been a Microsoft bitch for the past twenty years and it shows. They did everything they did to keep the 8086 instruction set running for every piece of screwed up DOS code written by guy with more karma than formal CS educations.
You do realize that this was mostly driven by multi-national corporations that didn't want to pay software engineers money to update all of the ancient legacy software right? Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years? :rolleyes:
You do realize that this was mostly driven by multi-national corporations that didn't want to pay software engineers money to update all of the ancient legacy software right? Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years? :rolleyes:
Multimedia
Aug 7, 07:58 PM
For the budget conscious, you can order a 2GHz MacIntel Pro for only $1962 with a 160GB HD. Since 250 GB Hds are only $70 these days - recently 400 GB was $99 at Fry's, yes SATA/300 Maxtor - Getting rid of the Apple 250 for a 160 is worth saving $67.
Apple's $400 price for 500GB HDs is Absurd. Fry's $99 for 400GB Maxtor SATA/300 on Memorial Day is more reasonable wouldn't you say?
The above is all based on the Educational pricing. But even the retail pricing is better saved than spent. ;)
My GUESS is that the 2GB MacIntel Quad is about the same speed or a little slower than the G5 Quad. But I love the 6 bays and additional ports in it.
I'm looking forward to teh benchmarks on the 2GHz Mac Pro Quad Vs. The 2.5GHz PM G5 Quad. That will tell quite the story. Note the SATA bus is 300 vs 150 on the G5.
But it is only about 15% more money - $270 Ed or $300 Retail - for 33% More Power. So the 2GHz model becomes an "it's all I can afford" model. Or only need for non-speed intensive applications.
Looks like a 3GB RAM config will cost at least almost $400 more - getting 2GB from third party. So pretty much a $2900 deal - Educational (plus HDs) for minimum 3GB setup on the 2.66GHz model - including 8% CA Sales Tax.
Apple's $400 price for 500GB HDs is Absurd. Fry's $99 for 400GB Maxtor SATA/300 on Memorial Day is more reasonable wouldn't you say?
The above is all based on the Educational pricing. But even the retail pricing is better saved than spent. ;)
My GUESS is that the 2GB MacIntel Quad is about the same speed or a little slower than the G5 Quad. But I love the 6 bays and additional ports in it.
I'm looking forward to teh benchmarks on the 2GHz Mac Pro Quad Vs. The 2.5GHz PM G5 Quad. That will tell quite the story. Note the SATA bus is 300 vs 150 on the G5.
But it is only about 15% more money - $270 Ed or $300 Retail - for 33% More Power. So the 2GHz model becomes an "it's all I can afford" model. Or only need for non-speed intensive applications.
Looks like a 3GB RAM config will cost at least almost $400 more - getting 2GB from third party. So pretty much a $2900 deal - Educational (plus HDs) for minimum 3GB setup on the 2.66GHz model - including 8% CA Sales Tax.
jholzner
Aug 4, 12:13 AM
Steve does not have to announce any new products to say they are going to shift to Core 2 across the board ASAP. :)
That's very true but my response wasn't to that statement but to this one:
"MBP Merom anyone? Appleinsider has always been reliable...so this may happen. This WWDC is gonna be great!"
I assumed that WWDC is going to be great because of MPB Merom which I don't think will be announced. :p
I could be wrong.
That's very true but my response wasn't to that statement but to this one:
"MBP Merom anyone? Appleinsider has always been reliable...so this may happen. This WWDC is gonna be great!"
I assumed that WWDC is going to be great because of MPB Merom which I don't think will be announced. :p
I could be wrong.
justflie
Nov 26, 10:35 AM
Interesting I guess. But is there really a home/consumer market for this? I could see it working for artists and other professionals of that nature, but I know more than a few people that own PC tablets that hardly ever use them as such.
Piggie
Apr 24, 08:49 AM
lol both of you guys, its called the iPad... by the way Apple made it very clear that touchscreen laptops dont work well.
No, he's talking about the drawing that shows something like a 24" iMac than can be swivelled down on your desktop from it's normal upright position to a slightly inclined position (like an iPad on it's new triangle smart cover back rest) and then you lift your arms up and use the 24" screen like an iPad.
Seems such a bad idea.
I like the idea of a giant touch screen in the surface of a desk, for some uses, but I'm really unsure about swinging an iMac screen around and sticking your hands all over it.
This image here: http://www.alltouchtablet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/touchscreen-apple-imac.jpg
No, he's talking about the drawing that shows something like a 24" iMac than can be swivelled down on your desktop from it's normal upright position to a slightly inclined position (like an iPad on it's new triangle smart cover back rest) and then you lift your arms up and use the 24" screen like an iPad.
Seems such a bad idea.
I like the idea of a giant touch screen in the surface of a desk, for some uses, but I'm really unsure about swinging an iMac screen around and sticking your hands all over it.
This image here: http://www.alltouchtablet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/touchscreen-apple-imac.jpg
cirus
Apr 24, 09:20 AM
3200x2000 requires 6,400,000 pixels. At 32 bit per pixel, we're talking 25,600,000 bytes of data. Considering modern framebuffers are double buffered, this requires 51,200,000 bytes of memory to hold. That fits into 48.82 MB of RAM. GPUs have had that much since ... hum... 2004 ? So we're good on framebuffer RAM.
Now, bandwidth. In order to refresh the screen 60 times, we need to push out those 25,600,000 pixels. That's going to require 11718 Mbps of bandwidth. Let's see... Display port 1.1a has 10.8 Gbps so it's a no go (though it could almost do it). If only there was a DP 1.2 spec that had a 21.6 Gbps cap... Oh wait there is. :D
So we're good on RAM and bandwidth. Now, what ATI family introduces DP 1.2 so that we can use this new standard ? Oh right, the Radeon HD 6000 series, AMD's current shipping tech! Now if only Apple would release some kind of support for these GPUs, like they did back in 10.6.7 ;) :
http://appleheadlines.com/2011/03/24/10-6-7-update-brings-native-graphic-acceleration-for-amd-5000-and-6000-series-video-cards/
So let's see if I got all of this right. We're good on RAM (have been for quite a few years). We're good on bandwidth for 60 hz 3200x2000 resolution. We're good on hardware (AMD 6000 series) and we're good on OS X support (with 10.6.7).
What exactly is missing here ? Oh right, a hardware refresh with said hardware included, which is probably a formality seeing all of these news and facts :cool:
I have a question.
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-radeon-hd-6000/hd-6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#3
Amd (ati) lists the desktop 6990 as having a maximum display output of 2560 x 1600 per display (with display port 1.2). Something is going to have to change on the hardware level.
My opinion: This will look amazing but 3D gaming is going to suck at that resolution and especially since an iMac will not be able to have a very good GPU since it cannot handle the heat. Of course they could design it so that the resolution could be brought down during gaming.
Now, bandwidth. In order to refresh the screen 60 times, we need to push out those 25,600,000 pixels. That's going to require 11718 Mbps of bandwidth. Let's see... Display port 1.1a has 10.8 Gbps so it's a no go (though it could almost do it). If only there was a DP 1.2 spec that had a 21.6 Gbps cap... Oh wait there is. :D
So we're good on RAM and bandwidth. Now, what ATI family introduces DP 1.2 so that we can use this new standard ? Oh right, the Radeon HD 6000 series, AMD's current shipping tech! Now if only Apple would release some kind of support for these GPUs, like they did back in 10.6.7 ;) :
http://appleheadlines.com/2011/03/24/10-6-7-update-brings-native-graphic-acceleration-for-amd-5000-and-6000-series-video-cards/
So let's see if I got all of this right. We're good on RAM (have been for quite a few years). We're good on bandwidth for 60 hz 3200x2000 resolution. We're good on hardware (AMD 6000 series) and we're good on OS X support (with 10.6.7).
What exactly is missing here ? Oh right, a hardware refresh with said hardware included, which is probably a formality seeing all of these news and facts :cool:
I have a question.
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/amd-radeon-hd-6000/hd-6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#3
Amd (ati) lists the desktop 6990 as having a maximum display output of 2560 x 1600 per display (with display port 1.2). Something is going to have to change on the hardware level.
My opinion: This will look amazing but 3D gaming is going to suck at that resolution and especially since an iMac will not be able to have a very good GPU since it cannot handle the heat. Of course they could design it so that the resolution could be brought down during gaming.