KilGil27
Sep 26, 11:53 PM
This may never come out...
Al Coholic
Apr 14, 12:59 PM
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Uh... who cares? You missed my point.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Uh... who cares? You missed my point.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 12:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
But "Windows" are not operating systems. The "App Store" is an app store.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
But "Windows" are not operating systems. The "App Store" is an app store.
ericswyatt
Apr 30, 02:48 PM
Given what we know, this may be a pretty minor bump in specs...if so, will the Apple stores have some "current" (now) soon to be "older" (on Tuesday) models marked down? Or, will the online store pretty quickly have some on mark-down like they did with the 1st Gen iPads when the iPad2 came out. Just looking for some thoughts from the Mac Vets, here...
I'm looking for a machine to replace my win7 box, 20 inch screen...to do basics on, mostly...writing, social media, internet, some basic video editing (nothing complicated), some basic music editing (again, simple stuff, nothing intensive), and minor web site work.
I'm looking for a machine to replace my win7 box, 20 inch screen...to do basics on, mostly...writing, social media, internet, some basic video editing (nothing complicated), some basic music editing (again, simple stuff, nothing intensive), and minor web site work.
lmalave
Sep 27, 09:52 AM
I really hope Apple doesn't jump on the camera-phone bandwagon. Seems to go against their philosophy of having devices that do few things but to them far better. And it would make the phone useless to me. But that's just because my employers are sensitive about such devices, with the nuclear reactors and all.
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
Umm...apple makes computers, remember? I agree that the success of the iPod is largely due to its elegant and simple design, but Apple also makes MacBooks, iMacs, etc. that are consumer-focused, elegant, and easy to use, yet provide rich functionality.
The thing is, the mobile phone is moving inexorably to essentially be a universal handheld communicator/computer that used to be the stuff of sci-fi films. Acually, if you ask me, the primary "must-have" on the phone of the near-future is high-speed internet access (3G+), not music or camera features. That being said, i think the music and camera features go hand-in-hand with high-speed internet. I think in addition to being able to download songs, you'll be able to listen to iTunes radio stations through the iPhone (if not at launch, then eventually). And having mobile phones acting as video phones will become common, too. Can you say iChat on your mobile phone?
So there you have the long term vision of the iPhone: a phone enabled with iTunes mobile, iChat mobile, PhotoBooth mobile. Not to mention QuickTime mobile, Safari mobile (ok, no need here really - I'm happy with Opera mini), Mail Mobile, iCal Mobile, Address Book mobile, etc. Not to mention the ability to play both the new iPod games and the huge amount of Java Mobile games already available.
I have to say, I already own a Sony Ericsson phone that already has most of the above features. What I am looking for from the iPhone is
1) all the same features as my SE phone, except done a little bit better
2) more seamless integration with my MacBook (though I have 3rd party software do do everything now)
3) a true 3G multimedia phone experience (my T-Mobile contract was up just this month, and the only reason I haven't immediately switched to Cingular and gotten the 3.5G LG CU500 phone is because I'm willing to hold out a few months to see what the iPhone has to offer)
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
Umm...apple makes computers, remember? I agree that the success of the iPod is largely due to its elegant and simple design, but Apple also makes MacBooks, iMacs, etc. that are consumer-focused, elegant, and easy to use, yet provide rich functionality.
The thing is, the mobile phone is moving inexorably to essentially be a universal handheld communicator/computer that used to be the stuff of sci-fi films. Acually, if you ask me, the primary "must-have" on the phone of the near-future is high-speed internet access (3G+), not music or camera features. That being said, i think the music and camera features go hand-in-hand with high-speed internet. I think in addition to being able to download songs, you'll be able to listen to iTunes radio stations through the iPhone (if not at launch, then eventually). And having mobile phones acting as video phones will become common, too. Can you say iChat on your mobile phone?
So there you have the long term vision of the iPhone: a phone enabled with iTunes mobile, iChat mobile, PhotoBooth mobile. Not to mention QuickTime mobile, Safari mobile (ok, no need here really - I'm happy with Opera mini), Mail Mobile, iCal Mobile, Address Book mobile, etc. Not to mention the ability to play both the new iPod games and the huge amount of Java Mobile games already available.
I have to say, I already own a Sony Ericsson phone that already has most of the above features. What I am looking for from the iPhone is
1) all the same features as my SE phone, except done a little bit better
2) more seamless integration with my MacBook (though I have 3rd party software do do everything now)
3) a true 3G multimedia phone experience (my T-Mobile contract was up just this month, and the only reason I haven't immediately switched to Cingular and gotten the 3.5G LG CU500 phone is because I'm willing to hold out a few months to see what the iPhone has to offer)
DavidLeblond
Aug 28, 02:00 PM
If you walked into the Apple Store today and bought a 2GHz MacBook, it'd be the most current.
Until tomorrow.
Well, allegedly. ... More like in my dreams.
Until tomorrow.
Well, allegedly. ... More like in my dreams.
Hunts121
Jul 14, 03:32 PM
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....
other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....
Analog Kid
Oct 12, 08:56 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
This is why I would make such horrible paparazzi... I don't recognize either one of them in that picture. I'd walk into the Apple store and be elbowing them both aside trying to get a look at the gadgets on the counter. That is until I got drawn and quartered by their two entourages pulling me in different directions arguing over who got to teach me a little respect first...
This is why I would make such horrible paparazzi... I don't recognize either one of them in that picture. I'd walk into the Apple store and be elbowing them both aside trying to get a look at the gadgets on the counter. That is until I got drawn and quartered by their two entourages pulling me in different directions arguing over who got to teach me a little respect first...
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 12:41 PM
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
Very nice. :D
I have to admit, they will be apart of me thats want to drop a Merom into my iMac CD. I may just do it.
AppleCare or Merom? So many choices!
*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
Very nice. :D
I have to admit, they will be apart of me thats want to drop a Merom into my iMac CD. I may just do it.
AppleCare or Merom? So many choices!
kreach
Apr 20, 09:58 AM
nice! Actually.
akadmon
Sep 4, 11:03 PM
Merom MBPs of course :D
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 03:23 AM
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. Apple does and mobile devices make up a large part of Apple's sales and revenue. They are a tiny blip on the radar percentage wise as far as pc's are concerned, no matter how you spin the numbers. 90% >4.6%. And yes, Apple makes a tremendous amount of money on the products they sell, far more than anyone else, and I realize that most of you take a tremendous amount of personal pride in the money Apple makes. And as a consumer, I find that absolutely bizarre. But that's just me.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 08:19 AM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
I hope so, at the latest. Though I'm hoping more for this tuesday the 19th, sort of how apple released the iMacs a week before their "It's Showtime" event--keep everything staggered by a week or so.
But Photokina seems like a good opportunity to, if not announce publicly, at least silent update them.
I hope so, at the latest. Though I'm hoping more for this tuesday the 19th, sort of how apple released the iMacs a week before their "It's Showtime" event--keep everything staggered by a week or so.
But Photokina seems like a good opportunity to, if not announce publicly, at least silent update them.
rtdunham
Sep 16, 11:53 AM
I would love to see an Apple Phone with these features:
- less than 100g
you're setting a high bar. my samsung a900, considered a very small RAZR-like phone, weighs 100g and lacks most all of the other feaures you want. (ex: the extended life battery adds 30g and even with it, the samsung's criticized for poor battery life)
- less than 100g
you're setting a high bar. my samsung a900, considered a very small RAZR-like phone, weighs 100g and lacks most all of the other feaures you want. (ex: the extended life battery adds 30g and even with it, the samsung's criticized for poor battery life)
Analog Kid
Sep 16, 02:40 AM
This is the most credible of the iPhone rumors I've seen so far-- in no small part because it didn't have a picture attached... The feature set sounds right, the move away from doing everything from the ground up sounds right. There's a lot of companies that have put a lot of effort into building technologies for cell phones-- it would be foolhardy for Apple to think they could do everything better. Get into the market with something that innovates in one small area-- even if that's just in its support for iTunes. Once you understand the market a little better, improve on the pieces you think you can.
AidenShaw
Mar 24, 05:17 PM
I would be shocked if USB 3 came to the Mac. Jobs has already said I see Thunderbolt taking the place of USB altogether.
If they did go on and add either USB3 or blu-ray to Macs, they'd be removing it the following year, as it will become obsolete quite rapidly (maybe even more than USB 2.0).
The USB 2.0 ports will be simply be upgraded to USB 3.0 ports - count on it once the chipsets only support USB 3.0.
ThunderPort is going to be far more expensive than USB 3.0 - USB will stay king for most devices (those needing 100 MB/sec or less). ThunderPort will be a high end special purpose connector for RAID-arrays, breakout boxes, eSATA/USB 3.0 hubs, docking stations, specialized audio/video equipment.
Just like cheap, ubiquitous USB 2.0 killed 1394a and 1394b in the marketplace (and killed FW1600 and FW3200 in the womb), USB 3.0 will be fine for the tasks that most people have.
If they did go on and add either USB3 or blu-ray to Macs, they'd be removing it the following year, as it will become obsolete quite rapidly (maybe even more than USB 2.0).
The USB 2.0 ports will be simply be upgraded to USB 3.0 ports - count on it once the chipsets only support USB 3.0.
ThunderPort is going to be far more expensive than USB 3.0 - USB will stay king for most devices (those needing 100 MB/sec or less). ThunderPort will be a high end special purpose connector for RAID-arrays, breakout boxes, eSATA/USB 3.0 hubs, docking stations, specialized audio/video equipment.
Just like cheap, ubiquitous USB 2.0 killed 1394a and 1394b in the marketplace (and killed FW1600 and FW3200 in the womb), USB 3.0 will be fine for the tasks that most people have.
thedbp
Oct 12, 08:25 PM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
Because in America, philanthropy is an afterthought to consumerism.
Where have you been since 1945? You gotta keep up with the Joneses. Now can out-Jones them by saying you CARE. In addition to having purchased the latest hot toy, of course.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
Because in America, philanthropy is an afterthought to consumerism.
Where have you been since 1945? You gotta keep up with the Joneses. Now can out-Jones them by saying you CARE. In addition to having purchased the latest hot toy, of course.
ksz
Jul 14, 10:07 AM
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
You can already overclock 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz Pentiums to 4.0 GHz.
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.
The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.
In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
You can already overclock 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz Pentiums to 4.0 GHz.
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.
The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.
In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
generik
Sep 4, 06:05 PM
Merom MBPs of course :D
prady16
Sep 14, 09:06 AM
Have a look at the front page.
It doesn't mention anything about a keynote!
It doesn't mention anything about a keynote!
ansl
Mar 22, 04:19 PM
I own a 2010 13" MacBook Pro and I'm loving all of its wonderfulness. However in relation to my job and my study I'm doing alot of coding and graphic work, which isn't ideal on a 13".
If apple does pull their finger out of their tight, price-raping, tingling a*sehole and decide to put a good GPU with 1GB standard, in the 21,5" (Wishfull thinking?) they'll have my money.
*1,850 dollars for the low-end 21,5 is ridiculous... lame danish taxes.
If apple does pull their finger out of their tight, price-raping, tingling a*sehole and decide to put a good GPU with 1GB standard, in the 21,5" (Wishfull thinking?) they'll have my money.
*1,850 dollars for the low-end 21,5 is ridiculous... lame danish taxes.
diamond.g
Apr 15, 03:29 PM
You have to admit this thread is really funny.
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
Subiklim
Aug 23, 04:49 PM
Ha! Probably crossed their minds.
I highly doubt it. Remember, when Apple gets big, they'll have the group of haters that follow Microsoft claiming monopoly.
I highly doubt it. Remember, when Apple gets big, they'll have the group of haters that follow Microsoft claiming monopoly.
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
0 comments:
Post a Comment