runninmac
Aug 31, 12:09 PM
OBVIOUS NEWS STORY!!
Apple will hold a special event during a week long special event!!
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
Apple will hold a special event during a week long special event!!
Well you see steve isn't giving a keynote at the Paris expo... so thats why its news :rolleyes:
dsnort
Sep 19, 01:56 PM
How long would it take to download a two hour 1080p movie?
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow". This was over a decent but not great motel WiFi setup, and I was downloading some other stuff for about half the time.
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow". This was over a decent but not great motel WiFi setup, and I was downloading some other stuff for about half the time.
Peace
Sep 5, 06:01 PM
What if you downloaded the movie to your Macbook Pro and went on a business trip? Or you only own a laptop?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
baryon
Apr 20, 01:25 PM
That's pretty ridiculous...
Thataboy
Sep 26, 08:36 AM
Lame.
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
FoxMcCloud
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
Stupid, just stupid. You can't possibly trademark App Store.
Putting two generic words together to form a generic term generically shouldn't be legally trademarked.
How often have you seen a music store named Music Store, or a food store named Food Store.
The part you should be able to trademark would be with your company name in front I.e Pheonix Music Store. Therefore no one else can call their music store Pheonix Music Store.
A store that sells apps cannot be trademarked as such, unless it featured a brand prefix like Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store, Amazon AppStore etc.
Example, if Amazon trademarked Amazon AppStore then this would prevent RIM from opening an AppStore in the Amazon forest called Amazon AppStore.
See?
Likewise, Tasty Food Store, there could be only one. But Food Store itself, no.
Putting two generic words together to form a generic term generically shouldn't be legally trademarked.
How often have you seen a music store named Music Store, or a food store named Food Store.
The part you should be able to trademark would be with your company name in front I.e Pheonix Music Store. Therefore no one else can call their music store Pheonix Music Store.
A store that sells apps cannot be trademarked as such, unless it featured a brand prefix like Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store, Amazon AppStore etc.
Example, if Amazon trademarked Amazon AppStore then this would prevent RIM from opening an AppStore in the Amazon forest called Amazon AppStore.
See?
Likewise, Tasty Food Store, there could be only one. But Food Store itself, no.
Eidorian
May 3, 11:21 AM
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
Silentwave
Jul 17, 06:23 PM
I'd bet it all that the iMac gets an Allendale with maybe a Conroe top-end option.
That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.
I'd actually say they'd be more likely to go straight Conroe, TDP is the same, has speedstep so it throttles back, and the Conroe has a bigger L2 Cache- just like the Meroms that would be most likely for the iMac.
Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.
Well, the main thing here is its a desktop chip not a server/workstation chip. Woodcrest is the same microarchitecture and all that. Just a 1333 FSB and slightly different clocks. The woodcrest's additional costs however would be a totally different MB/Chipset, and FB-DIMM RAM.
I suppose it may depend on how the game is written to take advantage of the cores.
That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.
I'd actually say they'd be more likely to go straight Conroe, TDP is the same, has speedstep so it throttles back, and the Conroe has a bigger L2 Cache- just like the Meroms that would be most likely for the iMac.
Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.
Well, the main thing here is its a desktop chip not a server/workstation chip. Woodcrest is the same microarchitecture and all that. Just a 1333 FSB and slightly different clocks. The woodcrest's additional costs however would be a totally different MB/Chipset, and FB-DIMM RAM.
I suppose it may depend on how the game is written to take advantage of the cores.
TheKrillr
Sep 5, 05:42 PM
I think we'll see a transition from iTunes to iMedia.
The iMedia Store (TV Shows, Music, Audiobooks, Movies). The iMedia Player (the "true" video ipod). airMedia (wireless video/audio streaming device).
Not sure aobut the phone name. iTalk? iWalk? iNeedAName?
The iMedia Store (TV Shows, Music, Audiobooks, Movies). The iMedia Player (the "true" video ipod). airMedia (wireless video/audio streaming device).
Not sure aobut the phone name. iTalk? iWalk? iNeedAName?
RKpro
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Wow, Apple is pretty much unstoppable now. And if anyone tries to get in their way, they've got a $60b war chest.
myca
Mar 23, 04:04 PM
I will be tempted by new 27" imac once they hit, got some in our office a few weeks ago and they are lovely machines, and as much as I'd prefer a mac pro, they really beyond what I need from a machine (and the price).
I would like to know if the new thunderbolt port can still do the target display mode, as if I get one I'd be getting rid of my two old 22" displays and I'd want to have my windows rig running through the display for certain things.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
It was similar with the introduction of firewire, it took a while for peripherals to make use of the connection, and whenever rumours of it being dropped come around some users (myself included) are up in arms.
I would like to know if the new thunderbolt port can still do the target display mode, as if I get one I'd be getting rid of my two old 22" displays and I'd want to have my windows rig running through the display for certain things.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
It was similar with the introduction of firewire, it took a while for peripherals to make use of the connection, and whenever rumours of it being dropped come around some users (myself included) are up in arms.
kim0785b
Oct 27, 01:22 PM
Apple Green Ipod,
musiclover137
Aug 23, 11:06 PM
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
shartypants
Mar 22, 03:37 PM
Why not, its best to move production to the newer processor if it costs the same.
ctdonath
Mar 23, 08:07 AM
What ThunderPort devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
LaCie 1TB Little Big Disk (http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=11625), available Summer 2011. 10Gb/s transfer rate; copy an HD movie in 30 seconds.
If I'm going to buy a Mac of any flavor now, I'll delay a bit for a Thunderbolt-capable version 'cuz I'll be stuck with it for long after compatible devices become available.
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it! Are you sure compatible devices will arrive within 22 years? What USB devices are you planning to buy? When will they be available?" You don't even have the name right. Meh.
sisyphus
Sep 10, 09:33 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:30 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.
Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.
foo10
Jul 17, 09:31 AM
I hope well have a Core 2 Duo on a MBP soon. I've been thinking of selling my 20" G5 iMac and buying a 17" MBP.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 12:30 PM
Its also not great for many many many other people. You still base your ideas and arguments on the flawed notion that people have unlimited data and could still get it. I will also state again, I personally believe this will be some kind of add-on locker and not replacing local storage. I believe replacing local storage at this point would be a major mistake on Apple's part because it would negatively affect so many people...granted, not all.
i'm not ignoring any facts. u are being too technical. i have unlimited data but i use less than 2gb. my point is if u are places and it has free wifi, CONNECT to it...which is what i do at work and at home. streaming does not use a lot of data like you think.
look at the MBA. obviously it's not a computer for you. Doesn't mean it's not a great option for someone else. Storage is minimal and doesn't have a cd drive at all. This is all my wife and i use for a computer. It works great for us.
do you see now where the future is going with minimal hard drive space and no cd drive???
i'm not ignoring any facts. u are being too technical. i have unlimited data but i use less than 2gb. my point is if u are places and it has free wifi, CONNECT to it...which is what i do at work and at home. streaming does not use a lot of data like you think.
look at the MBA. obviously it's not a computer for you. Doesn't mean it's not a great option for someone else. Storage is minimal and doesn't have a cd drive at all. This is all my wife and i use for a computer. It works great for us.
do you see now where the future is going with minimal hard drive space and no cd drive???
xenotaku
Sep 12, 03:09 PM
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
Old Smuggler
Sep 16, 12:02 PM
if they are using off the shelf parts it sounds like its going to be like every other phone which blows
zekegri
Mar 23, 05:18 PM
If I am sober enough to go through the process and find out where the checkpoints are then I should be able to use the software.
Teddy's
Sep 14, 12:27 PM
A Photographers event, eh?
I want to dig deep into photography. Last week I went to a bookstore and I was looking for Digital Photography books. What I found was something terrible: lots of books featuring Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw plugins, Adjustment of curves, RGB's, clone pixels, RAW and more RAW books.
I got really frustrated because, even though I understand that RAW format, I find everything just out of mind. It is so complicated... hey! I just want to edit my pictures with something easier like iPhoto without something complicated like Photoshop's Camera RAW. I found Aperture easier than PS. I tried it in an Apple Store with a MBP 17-inch like mine and it was sloooooooooow! But it is fine... I can deal with that, I think. What about an upgrade of Aperture where it is optimized and faster? I would really hate if they do a software upgrade and they make Aperture slower on Apple's previous (to C2D) hardware. The other part of the story is that I would like a gorgeous 20+ widescreen display, I don't care about an iSight built-in.
So maybe this is the time for good Photo-products upgrades...
I want to dig deep into photography. Last week I went to a bookstore and I was looking for Digital Photography books. What I found was something terrible: lots of books featuring Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw plugins, Adjustment of curves, RGB's, clone pixels, RAW and more RAW books.
I got really frustrated because, even though I understand that RAW format, I find everything just out of mind. It is so complicated... hey! I just want to edit my pictures with something easier like iPhoto without something complicated like Photoshop's Camera RAW. I found Aperture easier than PS. I tried it in an Apple Store with a MBP 17-inch like mine and it was sloooooooooow! But it is fine... I can deal with that, I think. What about an upgrade of Aperture where it is optimized and faster? I would really hate if they do a software upgrade and they make Aperture slower on Apple's previous (to C2D) hardware. The other part of the story is that I would like a gorgeous 20+ widescreen display, I don't care about an iSight built-in.
So maybe this is the time for good Photo-products upgrades...
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:18 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
