Multimedia
Aug 25, 05:37 PM
Bingo! Bring on the iMac Ultra with Conroe, 23" display and a powerful GPU. Now that would be an immediate purchase for me.Span that puppy with a second 23" Apple or 24" Dell Display and you have a fairly ultimate desktop. Better yet have Apple make the DVI Port Dual so you can span to a 30" Screen. Now that would be truly the ultimate iMac - Until they offer a 30" iMac. :p
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
McScooby
Sep 6, 09:01 AM
Does this mean we can expect MB / MBP revisions with a bumped HD?
Whistleway
Jan 2, 10:36 AM
doesn't seem like there is much to get excited about!
Or basically all rumors are messed up. No one knows whats coming except iLife and OS X preview. Talk about all the time wasted on these rumors :(
Or basically all rumors are messed up. No one knows whats coming except iLife and OS X preview. Talk about all the time wasted on these rumors :(
GLS
Mar 23, 02:46 PM
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Yes, Apple looks bad to have perhaps their most iconic device ever on their website. At the very least, without the iPod, the Apple of today would look quite different...or might not even be around....
Having said that...I do hope there will always be a click wheel iPod of some type offered. I much prefer it to using the touch interface, as far as iPod's are concerned.
I should have bought a spare Nano before they bastardized it last fall....
Yes, Apple looks bad to have perhaps their most iconic device ever on their website. At the very least, without the iPod, the Apple of today would look quite different...or might not even be around....
Having said that...I do hope there will always be a click wheel iPod of some type offered. I much prefer it to using the touch interface, as far as iPod's are concerned.
I should have bought a spare Nano before they bastardized it last fall....
archer75
Apr 19, 11:45 AM
It was rumored just prior to the macbook pro refresh that they might come with a small 16gb SSD drive just for the OS. Wouldn't surprise me to see that make it's way into an imac. Large SSD's are just too expensive and often times not big enough. And you only get a finite number of writes on them before they're garbage.
JosiahPB
Jul 18, 08:24 AM
Unless paying for movies with a 320x240 resolution with stereo sound is your thing....
bilbo--baggins
Jun 23, 02:26 PM
I like the iPad but I still feel more at home with the Mac. Maybe that will change, over time using the iPad may feel more natural and so perhaps over time there will be a gradual transition.
However, like most people here, I think this will be over a number of years, not in the near future. I've sometimes wondered what Apple might have up their sleeves for OS XI. Maybe that will mark more of a hybrid between OS X and iOS, but that's probably looking 5-10 years ahead.
However, like most people here, I think this will be over a number of years, not in the near future. I've sometimes wondered what Apple might have up their sleeves for OS XI. Maybe that will mark more of a hybrid between OS X and iOS, but that's probably looking 5-10 years ahead.
imac_japan
Apr 5, 01:40 PM
and guess which company has been more profitable recently? which company is debt free? (hint: it's not gateway) and which company had to expand beyond just selling cheap PCs to continue its operation? (another hint: it's not apple.)
Now that has to be the most double standard quote that I have ever read !!!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
Now that has to be the most double standard quote that I have ever read !!!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
finchna
Oct 23, 09:20 AM
Apple needs to get away from making such a big deal our of small updates (processor change) as Intel will have such things changing more often than motorola or ibm ever did. apple should reserve such announcements and hoopla for major revisions or complete overhauls. based on recent benchmarks there is little performance improvement in these new chips save for the speed bump.
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:49 PM
If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Allotriophagy
Nov 15, 08:37 AM
Perhaps this would allow me to play a large map on Civ4 without the terrible huge long pauses...
ozreth
Nov 25, 12:31 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
mrgreen4242
Nov 28, 10:43 AM
OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
applefan289
Mar 24, 01:08 PM
Excellent, more compatibility is what's hurting the Mac the most. This would be a great next step to make the Mac a more flexible, multi-purpose machine.
mrgreen4242
Aug 29, 03:43 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
We've all been crying for a new cube since the mini came out... is the mini an awesome machine? Absolutely, I love mine. But there is a market for a headless iMac/Cube/MacPro mini... people like me. I don't need a quad core computer. I don't need 16gb of RAM. I don't need 4 harddrive bays, or even two optical drive slots.
I do want a fast CPU, an upgradable GPU, a couple of full size HDDs and a full size optical drive. I also want something quiet, relatively affordable (something a bit less than an iMac would be idea), and stylish.
I don't think that Apple would lose Mac Pro sales to something like this - they might lose iMac sales but if the margins are the same for them who cares, and any loss of mini sales would be upsells, so it'd be a good thing.
I think a lot PC types, especially gamers, would be interested, bringing in new markets... None of my gamer friends would be satisfied by an iMac, but neither would they shell out $2-3k for a Mac Pro.
Let's see, the mini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, would anyone even notice if it went to 8.5x8.5x4? Even better would be 8x8x8, just for the cube dimensions, done in iPod white (or black), would look stellar on a desktop. Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz, 4 RAM slots for an 8gb max with 512mb installed stock, 1 16x PCIe w/ 7300GT base (BTO options), 1 PCI slot, 2 3.5" drive bays w/ 160gb standard, 1 5.25" bay w/ SD, AE, BT2, 6 USB2 (4 back, 2 front), 1 FW 400, 1 eSATA (in place of FW800)... $999 anyone? BTO options for slower/fast CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, bigger HDD and a $200 TV tuner/video encoder breakout box... :D
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
We've all been crying for a new cube since the mini came out... is the mini an awesome machine? Absolutely, I love mine. But there is a market for a headless iMac/Cube/MacPro mini... people like me. I don't need a quad core computer. I don't need 16gb of RAM. I don't need 4 harddrive bays, or even two optical drive slots.
I do want a fast CPU, an upgradable GPU, a couple of full size HDDs and a full size optical drive. I also want something quiet, relatively affordable (something a bit less than an iMac would be idea), and stylish.
I don't think that Apple would lose Mac Pro sales to something like this - they might lose iMac sales but if the margins are the same for them who cares, and any loss of mini sales would be upsells, so it'd be a good thing.
I think a lot PC types, especially gamers, would be interested, bringing in new markets... None of my gamer friends would be satisfied by an iMac, but neither would they shell out $2-3k for a Mac Pro.
Let's see, the mini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, would anyone even notice if it went to 8.5x8.5x4? Even better would be 8x8x8, just for the cube dimensions, done in iPod white (or black), would look stellar on a desktop. Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz, 4 RAM slots for an 8gb max with 512mb installed stock, 1 16x PCIe w/ 7300GT base (BTO options), 1 PCI slot, 2 3.5" drive bays w/ 160gb standard, 1 5.25" bay w/ SD, AE, BT2, 6 USB2 (4 back, 2 front), 1 FW 400, 1 eSATA (in place of FW800)... $999 anyone? BTO options for slower/fast CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, bigger HDD and a $200 TV tuner/video encoder breakout box... :D
Irishman
May 3, 04:43 PM
Yep, I am pleasantly surprised. I ordered one.
The Quad i5 or i7?
The Quad i5 or i7?
Mexbearpig
Nov 23, 03:03 PM
Bought a $15 iTunes gift card for my cousins birthday today.
http://www.giftcardsonlinecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Silhouette-15-iTunes-Gift-Card.jpg
http://www.giftcardsonlinecentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Silhouette-15-iTunes-Gift-Card.jpg
AppliedVisual
Nov 18, 02:28 PM
As I mentioned before about the lower spec FB-DIMMs only using one of the onboard buffers to improve latency (single gate / single rank), there are quite a few of these out there - especially in the 512MB capacity!
Here's the technical overview from Intel (http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/Fully-buffered-DIMM-0305.htm).
Anandtech had this little tidbit (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=1) about single vs. dual rank modules.
While single rank FB-DIMMs are somewhat discouraged, they are quite common on the market. Kingston ships single rank FB-DIMM parts that are nearly 30% cheaper than their dual rank parts. Some of their products are labeled as such, some aren't and who knows what you're getting when buying from a third-party vendor without specifically comparing part numbers, etc.. I am under the impression that the 512MB (as well as the 1 and 2 GB) modules from Apple are all dual rank. However, how do we tell for sure about modules from the cheaper vendors like 1-800-4MEMORY, or RAM4LESS, etc.. I guess we can try to ask for more detailed specs, but I've tried that before from RAM4LESS and all I could get is that "our modules are guaranteed compatible..."
Here's the technical overview from Intel (http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/Fully-buffered-DIMM-0305.htm).
Anandtech had this little tidbit (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=1) about single vs. dual rank modules.
While single rank FB-DIMMs are somewhat discouraged, they are quite common on the market. Kingston ships single rank FB-DIMM parts that are nearly 30% cheaper than their dual rank parts. Some of their products are labeled as such, some aren't and who knows what you're getting when buying from a third-party vendor without specifically comparing part numbers, etc.. I am under the impression that the 512MB (as well as the 1 and 2 GB) modules from Apple are all dual rank. However, how do we tell for sure about modules from the cheaper vendors like 1-800-4MEMORY, or RAM4LESS, etc.. I guess we can try to ask for more detailed specs, but I've tried that before from RAM4LESS and all I could get is that "our modules are guaranteed compatible..."
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:40 PM
They will either skip it altogether or perhaps replace all USB 2 ports with USB 3 ones (thus keeping TB as the "advanced" FW equivalent)...
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
aswitcher
Aug 16, 05:24 PM
I really want wireless earphones and a bigger better def screen. I just dont think its goign to happen soon or be cheap.
I would prefer the mythical 7" screen mac that can work fine when closed and weighs less than a kilo...
I would prefer the mythical 7" screen mac that can work fine when closed and weighs less than a kilo...
Cat-toy
Sep 24, 12:33 AM
glad to hear it. hopefully it'll be ready for pickup by monday. though the 99 cent hong kong cases are really starting to grow on me. i have like 7 of them. lol.
Me too...
As much as Belkins and the Incipio (I own dermaSHOT) cases are considered "quality" the little 99 cent cases have a place in my small world. two words - Color choices.
As it seems, we are all "covered" :)
Me too...
As much as Belkins and the Incipio (I own dermaSHOT) cases are considered "quality" the little 99 cent cases have a place in my small world. two words - Color choices.
As it seems, we are all "covered" :)
dark knight
Apr 10, 06:09 PM
as the other guys have said, in the UK automatics are pretty rare. i think we all know one friend or so who has an Auto only license, everyone else just gets a normal license.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
Gold89
Mar 26, 07:55 PM
Hugely impressive.
Apple really does sneak into markets, first into the music market, then into phones, then into gaming. Through an initial promising but flawed product and then evolution.
Apple evolves into the market and the market evolves around Apple (iTunes/App store).
Apple really does sneak into markets, first into the music market, then into phones, then into gaming. Through an initial promising but flawed product and then evolution.
Apple evolves into the market and the market evolves around Apple (iTunes/App store).
No comments:
Post a Comment