Fearless Leader
Aug 6, 09:57 PM
how long is the keynote?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:45 PM
You are not alone. I think there are a lot of Apple users right now who would love to see Apple release a mac-mini pro.
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Philberttheduck
Nov 29, 08:30 PM
What'll be the price on this badboy, you think?
TheBobcat
Nov 27, 01:27 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
kiensoy
Mar 25, 05:58 PM
30fps with no motion blur? That's gotta suck. It looks good here because youtube plays at 30fps with motion blur captured by the camera.
islanders
Dec 28, 01:08 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 08:13 AM
I agree. I would be surprised if Apple even offers it before next year. Blu-Ray DVRs are still about $1k and the blank media is also very expensive. Apple will have enough challenges keeping the Intel Quad under $4k without including Blu-Ray yet. But by this time next year, I would expect it to be a BTO option for the desktops at least.
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!
syklee26
Sep 7, 10:22 AM
order it from newegg! $20 cheaper
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110004
or get the family pack. only $45 more than what apple wants for the cheap single license haha
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110003
i don't think buying family pack for .Mac gives you 5 licenses. i think it's more like spliting one .mac account to 5.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110004
or get the family pack. only $45 more than what apple wants for the cheap single license haha
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110003
i don't think buying family pack for .Mac gives you 5 licenses. i think it's more like spliting one .mac account to 5.
moneyman118
Jun 22, 11:55 AM
Could be what the magic track pad was developed for?!?
I'mAMac
Sep 1, 01:18 PM
What is this chin on the iMac that everybody is talking about?
MacVault
Aug 7, 06:25 AM
I'm hoping that Leopard is more of an increment than the last couple of OS X releases were. I'd still rather use Tiger than any other OS, but Apple really needs to address its UI inconsistencies and usability issues. For example, I think that printing and font management in OS X are much more complicated than they need to be...
In addition to printing and font management, how bout adding to the list networking access. The way one accesses networks in Windows seems much more straight forward, consistent, clean and intuitive in Windows XP than it does in OS X. That's my oppinion anyway. Maybe that's just me. Anyone else agree???
In addition to printing and font management, how bout adding to the list networking access. The way one accesses networks in Windows seems much more straight forward, consistent, clean and intuitive in Windows XP than it does in OS X. That's my oppinion anyway. Maybe that's just me. Anyone else agree???
FireStar
Oct 2, 07:37 PM
My quest for the perfect case continues...... :(
I would suggest anything Switcheasy. (Even though they don't have anything out yet.) I think I'm going to get a BSE and a Griffin Reveal. But that's just me. Belkin looks promising....
I would suggest anything Switcheasy. (Even though they don't have anything out yet.) I think I'm going to get a BSE and a Griffin Reveal. But that's just me. Belkin looks promising....
jxyama
Mar 19, 03:29 PM
this is exactley why marketshare has dwindled for Mac, they tell you its our way ( powermac) or if you dont submit then we will cripple the Hell out of the othermacs and leave you wanting, so the worlds says screw you Apple and buys a PC with everything they want in it and makes do with a OS that is less then perfect. This is why Apples new computer sales went to 1.7% of all new sales. Apple is a dictator mini monopoly.
i highly doubt that many computer buyers even look at Macs.
i don't think they look at iMacs or eMacs and think that they are crippled compared to PMs and decide to go get dells instead. i simply don't believe that many of them go that far.
most of them "know" computers as running windows and purchased from dell catalog they get with their newspaper each week.
if they know anything about Macs at all, they know Macs as expensive and upon seeing that the base model eMacs cost $800, they go back to ordering $400 dell.
mac's marketshare has dwindled - that's a fact - but i don't think it's because customers think iMacs and eMacs are crippled computers. i think it's because they are simply unaware of Macs or think they are too expensive, period, not in comparison to PMs.
i highly doubt that many computer buyers even look at Macs.
i don't think they look at iMacs or eMacs and think that they are crippled compared to PMs and decide to go get dells instead. i simply don't believe that many of them go that far.
most of them "know" computers as running windows and purchased from dell catalog they get with their newspaper each week.
if they know anything about Macs at all, they know Macs as expensive and upon seeing that the base model eMacs cost $800, they go back to ordering $400 dell.
mac's marketshare has dwindled - that's a fact - but i don't think it's because customers think iMacs and eMacs are crippled computers. i think it's because they are simply unaware of Macs or think they are too expensive, period, not in comparison to PMs.
Old Smuggler
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
longofest
Jul 19, 03:48 PM
What, the analysts weren't even close? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Manic Mouse
Aug 26, 05:57 AM
Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
rezenclowd3
Jan 10, 07:33 PM
Americans mostly don't get the allure of a rallye type car. Ovals and 1/4 mile are about as sophisticated as we can manage. :p
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
lkjoseph
Apr 2, 10:53 PM
I think what you don't realize is that for people who love the iPad either:
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 10, 10:56 AM
I definitely think driving a manual makes me a safer, more attentive driver.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
I'm against crap that makes people lazy like adaptive cruise control, auto headlights and auto wipers and stuff like that, I suppose an automatic can fall in there too. That stuff makes drivers lazy and inattentive because they don't have to concentrate on the road.
The amount of times I see people who do not turn on their head lights at night makes me glad that a lot of cars have automatic headlights.
Way to many people refuse to turn on their headlights until they need them to to light up the road. They do not understand the fact that headlights also make a hell of a lot easier for other drivers to SEE YOU. Automatic headlights solve that issue.
As for adabptive cruise control I will admit I want that because on long drives having to mess with the cruise control settings gets annoying that or if I am following someone on long distance road trips it is hard to use the cruise unless you are the lead car.
As for me I drive a Manual but I also know manuals are a dieing bread as modern Automatics have gotten to the point they remove almost all the advantages manuals had. They can and often times do get better fuel economy due to the fact in city driving they have a computer that can shift exactly at the best point for the given power demand. Something no human can match and then at cruising speed the tranny and the engine are physically lock together just like in a manual so that advantage is gone. Hell they are not putting clutches in automatics that the car controls farther killing any plus the manuals had left.
archer75
Apr 19, 11:43 AM
The vapor chambers and relatively efficient TDP of the 6950, could be combined with a much needed re-engineered iMac cooling system(the current "slit" the back is silly)...I know I complain too much about this topic...but a 2650x1440 monitor should be powered by a MUCH more substantial GPU
I agree 100%.
I agree 100%.
needthephone
Jan 2, 04:19 AM
Personally speaking I can't get excited about software. An OS is an OS windows, OSX I don't care as long as it works (OK advantage Apple but if MS did the job I would use it) Ilife come on, surely something not as dull as free software no one uses.
Please let it be new stuff you can hold.
Please let it be new stuff you can hold.
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.
GregA
Mar 22, 04:10 PM
An email from Steve Jobs (edit: last September) isn't exactly recent...
That said, I do think it's possible that Apple might re-invent the classic. If they want cloud portability with some data stored on MobileMe, all on the "personal cloud" via back-to-my-mac, some on my iPhone etc - then a really large portable device might be very popular.
ie: For someone who regularly uses large data files and programs, and moves between machines on different networks - being able to place an iPod Classic (plus bluetooth & NFC?) next to any random Mac and have full access to all your programs and files WITHOUT needing an Internet connection could be really useful.
That said, I do think it's possible that Apple might re-invent the classic. If they want cloud portability with some data stored on MobileMe, all on the "personal cloud" via back-to-my-mac, some on my iPhone etc - then a really large portable device might be very popular.
ie: For someone who regularly uses large data files and programs, and moves between machines on different networks - being able to place an iPod Classic (plus bluetooth & NFC?) next to any random Mac and have full access to all your programs and files WITHOUT needing an Internet connection could be really useful.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 02:23 AM
Here is your quote SeaFox.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment