pengu
Sep 17, 07:36 PM
plus unlimited incoming minutes from anyone.
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).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
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).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
dernhelm
Sep 10, 04:53 PM
Apple, please,
BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!
A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.
Thanks.
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!
A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.
Thanks.
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
ripfrankwhite
Sep 5, 01:00 PM
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
Cinch
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
habermas
Mar 23, 04:30 PM
What's the idea of DUI checkpoints anyway? Can't police officers just pull over drivers they suspect of DUI if they catch them while on regular patrol? That's how it works here at least. Much less predictable and it negates the utility of the apps in question..
Tonewheel
Apr 20, 10:18 AM
So how would I go about encrypting this backup file on my Mac?
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
mi5moav
Sep 1, 07:10 AM
yup, this would be vertical acquisition, well probably more diagonal
Consumer Photography/Video- Apple knows something about this
Consumer Printing - Apple knows something about this
Apple has shipped over a million cameras in the last quarter alone so they do know something about the business.
Business- Canon is a big name in business Apple needs to get in
Medical - Canon is a big name in Medicine Apple needs to get in
Apple needs to grow, they must make shareholders Happy... this world revolves around shareholders, that's it, well actually making WallStreet Happy.
Then tell me what you would do with $10billion in Cash?
It's either that or give it all to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Consumer Photography/Video- Apple knows something about this
Consumer Printing - Apple knows something about this
Apple has shipped over a million cameras in the last quarter alone so they do know something about the business.
Business- Canon is a big name in business Apple needs to get in
Medical - Canon is a big name in Medicine Apple needs to get in
Apple needs to grow, they must make shareholders Happy... this world revolves around shareholders, that's it, well actually making WallStreet Happy.
Then tell me what you would do with $10billion in Cash?
It's either that or give it all to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Dmac77
Apr 24, 11:40 PM
I cannot even begin to describe how much i hate these idiotic people. They just enrage me. Anyone who has been doing 85mph+ on the highway and then has to slow down to under 70 knows what I mean.
Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.
I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway;)), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)
I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her.
-Don
Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.
I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway;)), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)
I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her.
-Don
scottsjack
Apr 30, 03:12 PM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
Well of course it will. Processing speed is only one of the reasons people buy Mac Pros. I'll predict that a SB iMac quad will easily go faster than any one of the current Mac Pros and maybe even faster than the corrent hexacore.
Well of course it will. Processing speed is only one of the reasons people buy Mac Pros. I'll predict that a SB iMac quad will easily go faster than any one of the current Mac Pros and maybe even faster than the corrent hexacore.
unobtainium
Apr 30, 01:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
diamond.g
May 3, 12:50 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Is TB able to have both channels send (or receive) at the same time? I am seeing that Wiki says it has 20GB/s of total BW, but that would imply that you can send data one way at 20GB/s which I didn't think was possible.
TB, according to what I understand about it, doesn't have the bandwith (single direction) to support DP 1.2.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Is TB able to have both channels send (or receive) at the same time? I am seeing that Wiki says it has 20GB/s of total BW, but that would imply that you can send data one way at 20GB/s which I didn't think was possible.
TB, according to what I understand about it, doesn't have the bandwith (single direction) to support DP 1.2.
JAT
Apr 29, 03:04 PM
both articles say the division/business unit that the x-box is in finally turned a profit. in 2010 this unit also included Office for Mac and Zune. the latest earnings release has no mention of Office for Mac in this unit but it still has windows phone and Microsoft's IP Television unit. ironically the big profit jump came after office for mac was kicked out of the unit
i'm bet x-box has been doing just fine and that windows phone and the IPTV units are the loss leaders
at some point apple is going to stop growing because the market penetration of smartphones will be at the point where you are just selling replacement phones. since AT&T opened the floodgates last year for early upgrades we'll see how things go this year
:rolleyes:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html
Microsoft itself claimed the Xbox was a loss leader. Back in back in etc. I guess you can argue that with them, too. Those other items are small potatoes in both cost and revenue in comparison. The Xbox IS that division when it comes to finance.
Office for Mac...it has almost zero cost. A few programmers.
i'm bet x-box has been doing just fine and that windows phone and the IPTV units are the loss leaders
at some point apple is going to stop growing because the market penetration of smartphones will be at the point where you are just selling replacement phones. since AT&T opened the floodgates last year for early upgrades we'll see how things go this year
:rolleyes:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html
Microsoft itself claimed the Xbox was a loss leader. Back in back in etc. I guess you can argue that with them, too. Those other items are small potatoes in both cost and revenue in comparison. The Xbox IS that division when it comes to finance.
Office for Mac...it has almost zero cost. A few programmers.
LightSpeed1
Apr 17, 02:08 AM
I think I would have rather held off for one of those oppsed to this sandy bridge and this thunderbolt.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
shidoshi
Aug 31, 09:13 PM
these obviosly gonna be optimizd for the full screen ipod, whats wrong with avi format anyway.
The fact that it isn't a "format," for starters.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
The fact that it isn't a "format," for starters.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 11:19 AM
What's up with the personal insults? If you want to pay top dollar for incremental increases that's your choice. Most of us "professionals" would prefer the fastest systems available, because as we all know, time is money!
1: Where is this personal insult you speak of? You could have said this in the original post, instead you decided to call my comment "silly" with no reasoning. That is a personal insult, not to mention childish.
2: I don't pay top dollar for incremental increase. Why the assumption?
3: Professionals may upgrade processors, but they don't overclock. Overclocking causes instability and decreases the life of the chip. And take time to do it correctly. If time is money, then a professional doesn't have time to tinker with the FSB and multipliers for hours, then stability test at every change.
4: The poster was saying he wouldn't buy a MBP unless it was swappable or overclockable, which since the dawn of time there have only been a few laptops where this was possible. I simply stated that he was asking too much for laptops. MacPro's and other Intel iMacs of course will more than likely be swappable, which the poster stated and is true.
1: Where is this personal insult you speak of? You could have said this in the original post, instead you decided to call my comment "silly" with no reasoning. That is a personal insult, not to mention childish.
2: I don't pay top dollar for incremental increase. Why the assumption?
3: Professionals may upgrade processors, but they don't overclock. Overclocking causes instability and decreases the life of the chip. And take time to do it correctly. If time is money, then a professional doesn't have time to tinker with the FSB and multipliers for hours, then stability test at every change.
4: The poster was saying he wouldn't buy a MBP unless it was swappable or overclockable, which since the dawn of time there have only been a few laptops where this was possible. I simply stated that he was asking too much for laptops. MacPro's and other Intel iMacs of course will more than likely be swappable, which the poster stated and is true.
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?
ictiosapiens
Apr 25, 09:17 PM
For 99% of the market, the integrated graphics are fine. The majority of consumers don't read tech sites and are happy with the performance. The typical pc buyer doesn't know what a benchmark is. In almost every Apple vs Winodws pc argument on this and every other Mac site, the Mac fans without fail say specs don't matter. If you're a gamer, you'll notice the performance hit. To the million plus people who will buy the next model it won't make any difference.
And a large portion of that 99% of the market will find integrated graphics fine, until they venture to the Apple App Store, and find that their spanking new MBA have a video card not supported by 99% of the games on sale... In fact, integrated graphics are not only not supported, but are specifically singled out in most game's system requirements.
And a large portion of that 99% of the market will find integrated graphics fine, until they venture to the Apple App Store, and find that their spanking new MBA have a video card not supported by 99% of the games on sale... In fact, integrated graphics are not only not supported, but are specifically singled out in most game's system requirements.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
FFTT
Sep 10, 05:01 AM
Interesting, but not sure how good the design is with 2 dual core processors
back to back.
I agree if Apple decides to use this at all it may be in a new smaller tower, or
Intel will sell this in a more affordale prosumer market for P/C's only.
Apple has gone server class Xeon in their Pro Towers, so it would be going backward
using Conroes.
I think you're right arn,
Just because Apple has agreed to use Intel chips, does not mean that every Intel chip
will be good enough to put in an Apple product.
back to back.
I agree if Apple decides to use this at all it may be in a new smaller tower, or
Intel will sell this in a more affordale prosumer market for P/C's only.
Apple has gone server class Xeon in their Pro Towers, so it would be going backward
using Conroes.
I think you're right arn,
Just because Apple has agreed to use Intel chips, does not mean that every Intel chip
will be good enough to put in an Apple product.
Jbloodwo
Apr 4, 01:00 PM
I am in San Diego and first heard the reports early in the am. All i can say is at least this was an armed guard.. I have not heard but I would not be shocked to hear that this garud was in fact a "rent a cop" http://www.offdutyofficers.com/
the latest reports i have heard said over 40 shots were fired...
so at least 1 clip was emptied.
Oh by the way even the transit cops carry in San Diego.
the latest reports i have heard said over 40 shots were fired...
so at least 1 clip was emptied.
Oh by the way even the transit cops carry in San Diego.
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:33 AM
I think this could very well be true.
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
Very well put.
I develop for all three platforms, and I must say that the Windows Phone 7 OS is already more user friendly than Android. I have owned 3 generations of iPhones, and 2 generations of iPads. While I won't leave Apple now, I can see a time where, once matured, the Windows Phone 7 / Xbox / Windows Tablet ecosystem will be the one to go with.
Until then, I will show nothing but love for my MBP, iPhone, and iPad 2, but let's NOT be short sighted fanboys here... No one thought Apple could make a successful phone or tablet either - and looks where we are at now. It's foolish to think Microsoft won't compete.
Sony didn't think they had a worry about their Playstation either, and now look...
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
Very well put.
I develop for all three platforms, and I must say that the Windows Phone 7 OS is already more user friendly than Android. I have owned 3 generations of iPhones, and 2 generations of iPads. While I won't leave Apple now, I can see a time where, once matured, the Windows Phone 7 / Xbox / Windows Tablet ecosystem will be the one to go with.
Until then, I will show nothing but love for my MBP, iPhone, and iPad 2, but let's NOT be short sighted fanboys here... No one thought Apple could make a successful phone or tablet either - and looks where we are at now. It's foolish to think Microsoft won't compete.
Sony didn't think they had a worry about their Playstation either, and now look...
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 03:41 AM
55 miles per US gallon ;). Thats 70 miles per imperial gallon as US gallons are smaller.
Damn stupid unit systems! What is this, the dark ages?! :mad:
70 mpg (UK ones) is high, 50-60 is quite normal I'd say.
Why can't we finally all switch to metric?!
Damn stupid unit systems! What is this, the dark ages?! :mad:
70 mpg (UK ones) is high, 50-60 is quite normal I'd say.
Why can't we finally all switch to metric?!
ValSalva
Apr 25, 02:25 PM
Maybe this MacBook Pro update will incorporate a retina display which the high resolution wallpaper in Lion hints at.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 10, 12:38 PM
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.
0 comments:
Post a Comment