musiclover137
Sep 13, 09:34 PM
this is definitely a style over functionality....how da heck do you dial a number with clickwheel?
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
Um, read the post buddy....
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
Um, read the post buddy....
chrmjenkins
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
Who are you to comment on the potential profitability of said move?
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 5, 11:01 AM
So with those numbers, a 720p stream with 5.1 audio should easily stream over even a 10 mbit network device. So I can easily see this working over 802.11g.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
OneMammoth
Mar 30, 01:32 PM
IMO it's like Publix or Kroger trying to claim the rights to "grocery store."
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
good point
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
good point
Derekasaurus
Jul 14, 09:19 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.
Or a mini. ;-)
Or a mini. ;-)
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 5, 11:01 AM
So with those numbers, a 720p stream with 5.1 audio should easily stream over even a 10 mbit network device. So I can easily see this working over 802.11g.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
flopticalcube
Apr 19, 10:08 PM
Keep listening to corporate run media which lies and doesn't tell the whole story.. my friend, unemployment and the economy aren't getting any better.. in fact, very soon it will collapse.. as inflation starts to settle in.. and if you wanna know the truth, look at BBC and other non-corporate run media for the truth. I know in my home state its like 7.9 percent and most of the jobs are health care and IT - no industrial, no customer service, nothing else.
See the roll eyes after his post, I think he was being sarcastic.
See the roll eyes after his post, I think he was being sarcastic.
revfife
Sep 12, 03:03 PM
My only problem is there doesn't seem to be an education discount right now on the new iPods. Just 249 and 349. :confused:
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 02:26 PM
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.
That would be an OS issue, would it not? It would be up to the OS to allocate cores to processes.
That would be an OS issue, would it not? It would be up to the OS to allocate cores to processes.
DavidLeblond
Apr 20, 11:34 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
GPS devices don't transmit. I think they'd have a much shorter of a battery life if they were sending signals to the satellite.
aswitcher
Sep 26, 07:20 AM
looking forward to an Australian deal. Hopefully it will be someone cheap like Virgin - they are "hip and trendy" (at least I think they are...)
relimw
Sep 14, 10:21 AM
Yup. I agree. And I bet the new MBPs will ship immediately as well. What would be really cool is if Apple lowered the price of Aperture to $199 or so to make it more affordable to the photo piddlers among us. After all, surely Aperture 2 is going to have massive hardware and GPU requirements (read: QuadCore Mac + 4GB RAM + X1900 video card). That is really where Apple makes it's cash. Just dreaming, of course, because I can't justify a $300 software package when I'm just a dabbler. Lightroom beta has been fun though.
No MBPs.
Obviously, you didn't buy Aperture when it first came out, only to find out you were beta testing software for Apple. Now, if I can just figure out what to buy with my $200 store rebate. Maybe update from PS7 to CS2...hmm.
No MBPs.
Obviously, you didn't buy Aperture when it first came out, only to find out you were beta testing software for Apple. Now, if I can just figure out what to buy with my $200 store rebate. Maybe update from PS7 to CS2...hmm.
Evangelion
Aug 23, 11:45 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System.
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
Bottom line: Creative knew this was a BS patent, too, but they figured they had to try.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. Truem the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
The question is: Will they go after Microsoft, too? It would be hypocritical not to, after all.
If it's UI infringes on the patentt, sure. If it doesn't, why sue?
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because it would have cost the five times more than it did now? Because Creative has very little of interest for Apple? Because if they did that, everyone would be suing Apple with hopes that Apple would just buy them as well?
Wong Hoo to Creative engineer: "This is no good, i give you $1000000 more and i want something much much better"
unCreative engineer: "Wooo Hooo, thanks Mr, Hoo, i'll do it in 128 different colors, am sure that it will turn the market upside-down"
As Jobs said in his most recent keynote more money in R&D isn't everything, and if he says so i believe him.
Unless Woo has something extraordinary under his sleeve - which he doesn't cause if he did he would not need more money - i see Creative in the same position in a couple of years from now. And then they'll try to sue somebody else.
The article you are quoting was published two years ago....
evaporateddwarf
May 1, 02:38 AM
I'm looking at getting a new iMac fingers crossed for the following:
- Bluray (I know... but it would be nice)
- Thunderbolt
- USB3
- AMD Radeon HD 67XX-68XX with up to 2GB RAM (it wont happen though :()
- Space for 2 HDD (I know, again it would be nice for two internal drives)
- i5 and i7.. Hopefully no i3 in the line up.
- Up to 24GB...
Again if I can't get an iMac with beefier video card it looks like another Alienware with Linux...
I think you're gonna get pretty disappointed. It wont't have blu-ray, likely no usb3, less likely that it'll have 2GBVram, the only way you're getting another hdd is to take out the optical drive, and it won't support 24GB of RAM.
- Bluray (I know... but it would be nice)
- Thunderbolt
- USB3
- AMD Radeon HD 67XX-68XX with up to 2GB RAM (it wont happen though :()
- Space for 2 HDD (I know, again it would be nice for two internal drives)
- i5 and i7.. Hopefully no i3 in the line up.
- Up to 24GB...
Again if I can't get an iMac with beefier video card it looks like another Alienware with Linux...
I think you're gonna get pretty disappointed. It wont't have blu-ray, likely no usb3, less likely that it'll have 2GBVram, the only way you're getting another hdd is to take out the optical drive, and it won't support 24GB of RAM.
Duujo
Aug 28, 06:19 PM
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
hayesk
May 3, 07:09 PM
I agree with this completely.
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
aswitcher
Sep 14, 07:23 AM
Cross the 8GB black iPod nano with a decent phone, add bluetooth earphones, and maybe even put in GPS, and we have a winner.
yg17
Apr 25, 06:31 AM
I'm not saying that my speed was legal, but after she brakechecked me, she dropped her speed to under 55mph which is illegal at least in portions of Michigan; there's a thing called a minimum speed limit.
-Don
2 wrongs don't make a right.
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
Lying to the cops. Wonderful idea.
-Don
2 wrongs don't make a right.
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
Lying to the cops. Wonderful idea.
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 10:01 AM
With the decent graphics and these C2D's they make the iMac a formiddable machine. Alot of PowerMac's are going to be replaced by these new iMac's i feel. Probably Apple's most impressive, solid and reliable machine at the moment
Unless Leopard is designed to make full use of the extra threads/cores available on the quad-core Mac Pro. Like that OS someone mentioned earlier in the thread that saw 60-70% performance gains when the cores were doubled.
I think the Mac Pro is fairly safe as a workstation, but fewer people will use it as a simple desktop now that iMacs are so competitive.
Unless Leopard is designed to make full use of the extra threads/cores available on the quad-core Mac Pro. Like that OS someone mentioned earlier in the thread that saw 60-70% performance gains when the cores were doubled.
I think the Mac Pro is fairly safe as a workstation, but fewer people will use it as a simple desktop now that iMacs are so competitive.
asxtb
Sep 5, 07:56 AM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.
deputy_doofy
Sep 14, 11:02 AM
Dell currently quotes 9-22. Or did yesterday when I placed an order.
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
Stupidity on MacRumors and in the federal government, as usual.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
kiljoy616
Apr 11, 02:37 AM
Unlikely - this would require the new private key be embedded in the firmware update package, which would defeat the purpose of replacing the old key.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
What could they loose, but I know there be more demand for apple products if more companies jump on the band wagon. Like TV with Airplay built in, nice. :D
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
What could they loose, but I know there be more demand for apple products if more companies jump on the band wagon. Like TV with Airplay built in, nice. :D
neil1980
Apr 25, 02:29 PM
I love the way so many people say that 'nobody' has a use for the SuperDrive.
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway