4God
Aug 29, 03:32 PM
Well, may be off topic but the shipping times on the MacBooks has been inreasing on the Apple Store online U.S. since yesterday. They were at 3-5 business days yesterday and now they're all at 5-7. Could be something, could be nothing.
EDIT: Also, the 17" iMac was at 24 hrs and the 20" iMac was at 1-2 business days when I checked yesterday and now they are both at 1-2 business days.
EDIT: Also, the 17" iMac was at 24 hrs and the 20" iMac was at 1-2 business days when I checked yesterday and now they are both at 1-2 business days.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:32 AM
Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
.jpg "inspirational quotes on life")
JFreak
Jul 14, 03:41 AM
Wireless "N"? psh, I'm still using "B".
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
iGav
Feb 25, 07:51 AM
looking at the very current and very genius Fiat Twin Air engines i have to say that very refined turbocharged small displacement/ few cylinder engines are actually the next step over the overly complicated hybrid systems
The Twin Air is conceptually brilliant... but its real world numbers haven't anywhere near matched up to Fiat's official figures (68.9mpg official - 35.7mpg real world, neither of which are particularly brilliant to begin with) and there lies one of the problems with small capacity engines, in anything other than ideal test conditions (i.e. rolling road), it is extraordinarily difficult to even approach the officials figures in everyday conditions, because put simply, they have to be razzed.
Like what you've said though, there's a compelling argument to be made that a diesel-electric hybrid (like VW's XL1 Concept), with energy recovery would probably be the best arrangement (particularly for an urban car), in this instance the diesel engine is isolated from the actually drivetrain (reducing NVH etc) and the electric motors counter the age old argument of petrol>diesel refinement.
I do think that smaller capacity, fewer cylinder engines are the way to go, but only if the absolutely most important factor is addressed first, and that is one of weight, until then...
The Twin Air is conceptually brilliant... but its real world numbers haven't anywhere near matched up to Fiat's official figures (68.9mpg official - 35.7mpg real world, neither of which are particularly brilliant to begin with) and there lies one of the problems with small capacity engines, in anything other than ideal test conditions (i.e. rolling road), it is extraordinarily difficult to even approach the officials figures in everyday conditions, because put simply, they have to be razzed.
Like what you've said though, there's a compelling argument to be made that a diesel-electric hybrid (like VW's XL1 Concept), with energy recovery would probably be the best arrangement (particularly for an urban car), in this instance the diesel engine is isolated from the actually drivetrain (reducing NVH etc) and the electric motors counter the age old argument of petrol>diesel refinement.
I do think that smaller capacity, fewer cylinder engines are the way to go, but only if the absolutely most important factor is addressed first, and that is one of weight, until then...
rickdollar
Apr 19, 02:55 PM
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
It doesn't look like it according to the quote but he was referring to Ivy Bridge.
It doesn't look like it according to the quote but he was referring to Ivy Bridge.
prady16
Oct 23, 08:11 AM
I hope they start shipping them right away or at least have loooots of stock available at the retail stores!
quadgirl
Sep 1, 12:54 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)
Tilpots
Oct 23, 08:58 AM
Orange enclosures and a scary, carved apple face for a Halloween Release!:D
projectle
Aug 6, 09:00 PM
Or Leopard as Vista SP1; that should be a good two years off...
Lennholm
May 2, 07:04 PM
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
That's probably the most unreliable function in Windows. It's an afterthought that was pieced together when they realised they can't count on sw developers to provide an uninstall app for their sw
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
That's probably the most unreliable function in Windows. It's an afterthought that was pieced together when they realised they can't count on sw developers to provide an uninstall app for their sw
IndyGopher
Apr 5, 09:52 PM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
Next Commodore 64? You know Commodore started selling computers after Apple, sold fewer computers than Apple, and is gone, right? Why the Hell do you want Apple to be anything like Commodore?
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
Next Commodore 64? You know Commodore started selling computers after Apple, sold fewer computers than Apple, and is gone, right? Why the Hell do you want Apple to be anything like Commodore?
sineplex
Sep 29, 02:13 AM
Still satisfied with my dermashot. It really hasn't collected much dust. If your on the wall still about a silicon case, check it out.
Bill
Thanks Bill - I just got mine in the mail today.
You said the screen protector isn't great and I've decided to not even use a screen protector now and go naked and just use the Dermashot cover to protect the back. It looks really great, will pick up my 32GB IPT4 before the weekend.
Bill
Thanks Bill - I just got mine in the mail today.
You said the screen protector isn't great and I've decided to not even use a screen protector now and go naked and just use the Dermashot cover to protect the back. It looks really great, will pick up my 32GB IPT4 before the weekend.
heffemonkeyman
Sep 7, 12:59 PM
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
rezenclowd3
Jan 13, 12:09 AM
For those that think it [BMW 1 series] is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I'm 6' 3", and I have tried just about every car that I like that people said I would not fit in: Z3s, the E30 I bought, Datsun 240z, Miata, Triumph TR6, and a few more. (I prefer proper vintage small body British sports cars, when cars could be lightweight) Honestly just the Miata was not comfortable for me. I do think that ALL the seats were still too high off the floor of the car. No head issues in any of them really. I prefer F1 style seating like I have setup with my racing/gaming chair. The only car I felt the most comfortable in was a 96 C4 Corvette.
What I hate is an accelerator pedal that is behind the brake pedal. I want both knees at the same height when setup from dual foot driving (term?)... Any recommendations for cars like that, or do I need to install race pedals?
Anyway, back to the 1 series. One word: Bitchin (But I think its too heavy for its size)
I'm 6' 3", and I have tried just about every car that I like that people said I would not fit in: Z3s, the E30 I bought, Datsun 240z, Miata, Triumph TR6, and a few more. (I prefer proper vintage small body British sports cars, when cars could be lightweight) Honestly just the Miata was not comfortable for me. I do think that ALL the seats were still too high off the floor of the car. No head issues in any of them really. I prefer F1 style seating like I have setup with my racing/gaming chair. The only car I felt the most comfortable in was a 96 C4 Corvette.
What I hate is an accelerator pedal that is behind the brake pedal. I want both knees at the same height when setup from dual foot driving (term?)... Any recommendations for cars like that, or do I need to install race pedals?
Anyway, back to the 1 series. One word: Bitchin (But I think its too heavy for its size)
ten-oak-druid
Mar 23, 11:58 AM
The classic is too young to be old school. But it feels that way.
dsnort
Jul 19, 06:47 PM
As a recent "switcher", I feel personally responsible for these numbers. An iMac 20" intel, a Black Book, a Nano and a shuffle in the last 3 months! ( Of course, I'm totally broke now, and the kids are going hungry, but it's nice to see Apple doing well!)
MrFrankly
Aug 29, 09:05 AM
I think it's ridiculous to not put a Core 2 Duo chip into the Mini. While I'm not waiting for Merom, to upgrade one of your machines with a faster version of the same soon-to-be-out-of-date chip is silly.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
Reventon
Nov 24, 12:42 PM
Gran Turismo 5: Collector's Edition (PSN: copenmind, if you wanna race :D ).
hobbyrennfahrer
Feb 7, 03:58 PM
My new "old" car...:cool:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
Win :D
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
Win :D
killmoms
Apr 13, 12:52 AM
All I need to know is if AJA will be supporting it.
If the answer is �yes,� then the whiny �pros� in this thread can shut up and get used to the new interface�it�s still just as pro as before.
SUPER excited about this. Can�t wait to see the rest of the suite. I�m doing a ton of hardware upgrades at my office now (new edit suites). Wish I could wait until the new FCS was out, but for now I�ll just eagerly await the day I can unleash all 12 cores of my incoming Mac Pros on some video game trailers. :D
If the answer is �yes,� then the whiny �pros� in this thread can shut up and get used to the new interface�it�s still just as pro as before.
SUPER excited about this. Can�t wait to see the rest of the suite. I�m doing a ton of hardware upgrades at my office now (new edit suites). Wish I could wait until the new FCS was out, but for now I�ll just eagerly await the day I can unleash all 12 cores of my incoming Mac Pros on some video game trailers. :D
DeusInvictus7
Nov 24, 07:28 PM
Picked these up earlier today. So much fun!
GT 5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/GT5-boxart-final-EU.jpg
Logitech Driving Force GT
http://playseats.biz/files/logitech-driving-force-gt-for-sony-playstation-3.jpg
hit me up online if you wanna race :) PSN Name is my forum name.
GT 5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/GT5-boxart-final-EU.jpg
Logitech Driving Force GT
http://playseats.biz/files/logitech-driving-force-gt-for-sony-playstation-3.jpg
hit me up online if you wanna race :) PSN Name is my forum name.
wizard
Mar 24, 01:50 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)
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
newrigel
Nov 16, 11:03 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
No comments:
Post a Comment