BJB Productions
Apr 12, 09:43 PM
Thank you, right on time.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
And also, it is exactly the FCP interface we've had since the beginning. And the beginning of time. (it really only depends on which elements you want to emphasize.)
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
paradox00
May 3, 01:12 PM
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Some windows uninstallers leave a ton of crap behind too, more that the library files that are left behind on a mac (which can easily be found and removed). I think you need to get over your concerns with the consequences of dragging something to the trash in OSX just because that won't work well on Windows.
PS: Why is leaving behind a text file so you can easily restore your settings a bad thing?
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Some windows uninstallers leave a ton of crap behind too, more that the library files that are left behind on a mac (which can easily be found and removed). I think you need to get over your concerns with the consequences of dragging something to the trash in OSX just because that won't work well on Windows.
PS: Why is leaving behind a text file so you can easily restore your settings a bad thing?
Sbrocket
Jan 11, 05:20 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable. i am willing to bet the phase "there's something in the air" is referring to the soon to be announced rental service, not a piece of hardware. apple is making an obvious attempt to eliminate physical mediums altogether, first cds with mp3s and now dvds with downloadable vids (both via the itunes music store). everything will be available "in the air" or "up in the cloud," if you will. i'll be damned if they name their next product the "macbook air." c'mon people...
You may want to retract that...
Why do you assume that the information was based off the posters, rather than simple coincidence or MR waiting for some corroboration? That's a bad assumption if I had to say so.
You may want to retract that...
Why do you assume that the information was based off the posters, rather than simple coincidence or MR waiting for some corroboration? That's a bad assumption if I had to say so.
MM2270
Sep 7, 12:14 PM
I agree with everyone here that if Apple only intros a movie purchase model, it will suck. Most people don't want to own movies. After all, you don't see many music rental services out there in the brick and mortar world, but there are millions of movie rental places. It's a tried and true model that they should emulate to an extent and bring to the online world. Of course, they should innovate on the basic model as Apple is known to do.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
But, I keep thinking, why stop at one model? I know Apple likes to keep things simple, but it seems to me you could have both.
Here is how I would envision a great movie distro system.
Users have the option to either rent or buy a movie, with two buttons "rent this movie", "buy this movie" next to it's description.
The rental model would work like this:
• Quality would be slightly lower than DVD quality. Maybe same resolution, but compressed a little bit more to reduce file size (after all, if you aren't keeping it, it should download quickly)
• You can play the movie up to 5 times or within a 14 day period, whichever comes first. After that, it expires, so you can no longer play it. This would be linked to the DRM model within iTunes.
• No DVD burning with rentals. They would never allow you to make a copy of it since you don't own it. (I mean of course, burning to DVD playable in a standard DVD player. If you wanted to somehow back up the data file itself, you could, but it would be pointless.)
The purchase model would be like this:
• DVD quality playback. So, somewhat larger downloads, but they will be worth it, because it would be the same as renting from your local video store.
• You can play it unlimited number of times. You own it, so why not?
• DVD burning capability for backup purposes, but would be limited to 3 burns, then it's done. They would have to encode something within the file itself that would know it's been burned to DVD 3 times, not within iTunes, or that could possibly be circumvented.
Oh, and as for price of each? I think $2.99 - $4.99 for rentals and $9.99 - $14.99 for purchase would be ideal.
And one other thing. The iTMS would keep track of what you've rented, and if you decide you'd like to own that movie later, you can purchase it by paying the difference in price between the rental and purchase. So, for a movie that was $4.99 rental and $14.99 puchase, you'd pay $10. Now THAT would be sweet!
In the end, I doubt we'll see something like this, but that's what I would want and use. For those great movies that I would like to own, I would pay the purchase price for the convenience of not having to go out to a store or buy it at Amazon and wait for it to arrive.
For everything else that I don't want to keep, the rental model would be what I'd use.
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.
louis Fashion
Apr 21, 08:40 PM
You and Full of Win must be related. Or married. Or both.
No they both married their sisters.
No they both married their sisters.
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 10:10 AM
...my iPhone 4 still gets the best reception of any phone I've ever owned, regardless of how I hold it or whether or not it has a case on it...
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).
Veg
Feb 28, 04:19 PM
What's it made out of? And I presume there's a third leg holding the back of the iMac foot up? Otherwise I'd be rather concerned about it falling out of balance during an intense typing session :o
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
We constructed it out of aluminum, it's the perfect material and looks great. Correct, it has a foot extending from the back that just barely stretches pass end of the stand.
Ha agreed.
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
We constructed it out of aluminum, it's the perfect material and looks great. Correct, it has a foot extending from the back that just barely stretches pass end of the stand.
Ha agreed.
stripedsnake
Feb 8, 03:44 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4705439388_f0fef97f94.jpg
Loving every second I drive her.
Loving every second I drive her.
shurcooL
Mar 26, 08:41 AM
"silky smooth" 30 frames per second
Welcome to where the above phrase is not considered an oxymoron. :rolleyes:
Welcome to where the above phrase is not considered an oxymoron. :rolleyes:
shawnce
Aug 29, 02:07 PM
The pricelist from Intel themselves (PDF). (http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf)
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc. That link is currently to the July 27th 2006 price list which was way before the merom announcement (note that no merom parts are listed). Wait until the new price list is posted...
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc. That link is currently to the July 27th 2006 price list which was way before the merom announcement (note that no merom parts are listed). Wait until the new price list is posted...
aswitcher
Aug 7, 03:56 AM
Dude, it's even better than that! Its song capacity is only limited by how many cassette tapes you can carry!
Is there a car phone version that plugs directly into the tape deck?
Is there a car phone version that plugs directly into the tape deck?
Soura2112
Apr 12, 09:49 PM
64Bit, 8 Cores...... Perfect for my new Mac Pro! Very excited.
Thankfully never paid attention to the negative people pre NAB show.
Thankfully never paid attention to the negative people pre NAB show.
celebrian23
Jul 18, 03:45 PM
I've watched every movie I own at least 15x, and most of them many more than that. I for one won't rent from itunes, I'd rather not is all. If they make money off of it, more power to them
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 6, 08:48 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
Core Duo prices will decrease soon (October or so), so Apple will probably have a price decrease then. Additionally, it may wait to put merom in its Macbook lineup, and instead have a price decrease there too...
Core Duo prices will decrease soon (October or so), so Apple will probably have a price decrease then. Additionally, it may wait to put merom in its Macbook lineup, and instead have a price decrease there too...
Sodner
Apr 19, 12:19 PM
Honestly with the new Quad Core MBP lineup it makes much more sense to get a monitor and add it to your notebook than to get an iMac.....
It be fine if the ACD wasn't a grand. :eek:
It be fine if the ACD wasn't a grand. :eek:
iJohnHenry
Mar 1, 07:46 PM
Apparently the diesel Cruze tops out at 120 km/h (130ish mph);
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
peapody
Nov 28, 08:19 AM
first pair of decent headphones.
grado sr60i
http://www.opticaudio.co.uk/images/Grado%20SR60I-2.jpg
Oh damn just looking at these make me really miss them. Dammit.
Just listed my macbook air 11" on ebay, and picking up this UL20ft from the bay.
12.1-inch 720p (1366x768) display with LED backlighting
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)
Intel Core i3-330UM (1.20GHz)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD integrated graphics
2GB DDR3 RAM 1066MHz
320GB 5400RPM hard drive
802.11b/g/n wireless and Bluetooth
6-cell Li-ion battery (4400mAh, 47Whr)
Weight: 3.3 lbs
Dimensions: 11.8 x 8.4 x 1 inches
Price $450!!!
Will be upgrading the ram to 4gb and the hdd to ssd with stuff I have laying around the house. Should make a great on the go computer alternative to the $1500 "ultimate" 11.6" air.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/5214035919_fffb1d5fc0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5214035919/)
grado sr60i
http://www.opticaudio.co.uk/images/Grado%20SR60I-2.jpg
Oh damn just looking at these make me really miss them. Dammit.
Just listed my macbook air 11" on ebay, and picking up this UL20ft from the bay.
12.1-inch 720p (1366x768) display with LED backlighting
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)
Intel Core i3-330UM (1.20GHz)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD integrated graphics
2GB DDR3 RAM 1066MHz
320GB 5400RPM hard drive
802.11b/g/n wireless and Bluetooth
6-cell Li-ion battery (4400mAh, 47Whr)
Weight: 3.3 lbs
Dimensions: 11.8 x 8.4 x 1 inches
Price $450!!!
Will be upgrading the ram to 4gb and the hdd to ssd with stuff I have laying around the house. Should make a great on the go computer alternative to the $1500 "ultimate" 11.6" air.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/5214035919_fffb1d5fc0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5214035919/)
lyzardking
May 2, 06:17 PM
dang, 3 mac pros!
are you running bigadv units on all 3? or do you use them for something other folding? (i assume you do) and if you don't mind me asking, how do they do if you use them while folding?
well it seems something might be going on with your username for some reason. you might want to make a thread over at the folding forums about it - maybe they can help
they're all used for DTP (AI, AP, QE, etc)
the older one (at home) needs to be paused anytime I need to do anything processor intensive (not the issue with the 09s) especially HB and the like.
The 08 wont make deadlines with the bidadv units (not after pausing it for hours at a time LOL) unfortunately, I am unable to select the number of processors it will use (like I use to <4>) so now I have to pause it.
It looks like people are aware of the user name issues over in the "F@H Widget needs testing" thread
LK
are you running bigadv units on all 3? or do you use them for something other folding? (i assume you do) and if you don't mind me asking, how do they do if you use them while folding?
well it seems something might be going on with your username for some reason. you might want to make a thread over at the folding forums about it - maybe they can help
they're all used for DTP (AI, AP, QE, etc)
the older one (at home) needs to be paused anytime I need to do anything processor intensive (not the issue with the 09s) especially HB and the like.
The 08 wont make deadlines with the bidadv units (not after pausing it for hours at a time LOL) unfortunately, I am unable to select the number of processors it will use (like I use to <4>) so now I have to pause it.
It looks like people are aware of the user name issues over in the "F@H Widget needs testing" thread
LK
tychay
Nov 28, 09:10 PM
MS never made a smartphone, they make the windows mobile software that runs on others hardware. The xbox is ms hardware and software, just like the zune. It's a entertainment market, just like the xbox, windows mobile software isn't in the entertainment market. There are far more direct comparisons between zune and xbox than between windows mobile and zune. As for peeing on their partners, what's new, I think we all know they don't play nice, instead they play to win.
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 03:50 PM
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
h'biki
Apr 16, 02:30 AM
For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
.
One of the *few* examples of companies pulling out. Premiere was another high profile example. But over the last 3 years has seen companies companies porting their Windows/Linux/Unix software to OS X as well as a flood of original development -- which to me indicate that the platform is healthy.
(Examples include Maya, the return of MatLab to the platform, Absofts C++ Complier, Combustion, Shake [when it was with Nothing Real]... as well as original progs like iView, Proteus, SpamSieve etc]
.
One of the *few* examples of companies pulling out. Premiere was another high profile example. But over the last 3 years has seen companies companies porting their Windows/Linux/Unix software to OS X as well as a flood of original development -- which to me indicate that the platform is healthy.
(Examples include Maya, the return of MatLab to the platform, Absofts C++ Complier, Combustion, Shake [when it was with Nothing Real]... as well as original progs like iView, Proteus, SpamSieve etc]
Madmic23
Sep 1, 02:26 PM
hopefully this 23 inch one adds something more than just a bigger screen....such as component RGB input which would allow me to hook my my xbox 360 to play. that would RULE.
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
You can already play your Xbox 360 on your iMac, just not in high def. Buy an EyeTV TV adapter that has the game mode, and you can play that way. The best input available on there is an Svideo connection, so you want get HD, but it's still a pretty crisp picture.
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
You can already play your Xbox 360 on your iMac, just not in high def. Buy an EyeTV TV adapter that has the game mode, and you can play that way. The best input available on there is an Svideo connection, so you want get HD, but it's still a pretty crisp picture.
ipedro
Nov 28, 10:01 AM
Whoever actually buys a Zune is gonna get burned. This thing is gonna get discontinued if holiday season sales are this bad. So because Zune only works with music from the Zune marketplace, if the Zune is discontinued, so is the marketplace leaving existing Zunes pretty much as paper weights.
No comments:
Post a Comment