DotComName
May 2, 04:54 PM
Nice to see Apple bringing all of these nifty iOS elements to the Mac... But come on Apple, no need to beat around the bush.. We know iOS and OSX will soon be one in the same, trackpads and mice in the garbage and transverse plane oriented multitouch desktop screens.
.PNG "selena gomez who says shoes.")
aswitcher
Jan 11, 05:17 PM
like i submitted and you ignored completely...they are of the aluminum build which would make it appear to be on the PRO side. Why would they build something identical to the current macbook???
Because its not going to be identical.
Neither will have built in superdrive, but will have the same external model.
Pro machine will have additional stuff like backlit keyboard, FW800, graphics card. Probably be even smaller and lighter. Maybe have a touch screen.
They will be quite clearly different and $ differences as well.
Because its not going to be identical.
Neither will have built in superdrive, but will have the same external model.
Pro machine will have additional stuff like backlit keyboard, FW800, graphics card. Probably be even smaller and lighter. Maybe have a touch screen.
They will be quite clearly different and $ differences as well.
rdowns
Sep 14, 08:50 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
nyprospect
Apr 2, 09:56 PM
Makes me want to buy one.Go figure.
Multimedia
Sep 7, 11:31 AM
Did I miss something or did the top end mini model go from $799 to $599. Ok. it has a smaller drive and no superdrive. BUt who uses DVDs anymore?I do. That's how I archive all my HDTV and SDTV recordings. I burn Disk Images with Toast then rip those images to mp4 files with Handbrake to take what starts out as a 6GB HD master and winds up a 351MB mp4 file that looks almost as good as the original - just a little softer is all. So I can get 12 one hour prime time HDTV shows on one 4.38GB DVD or two on a 702.8MB CD.
For me this is the future of TV show recording and storage. I've got it down to a science that is as good as is possible with today's technology to get something that is very big to be very small and still deliver a decent viewing-listening experience on a HD Screen while remaining iPod compatible at the same time.
Only drawback is computing power. Even the 3GHz Mac Pro is too slow to do this in rapid time. So it takes a more time than the programs lengths to do right now that should in future take only a few minutes each. I'm hoping that amount of power will be with us by 2008 or 2009. It's a fundamental challenge that needs to get solved before what I am doing can have mass appeal. It's almost tlike a full itme job - no it is a full time job. Except I'm not getting paid to do it. :eek:
For me this is the future of TV show recording and storage. I've got it down to a science that is as good as is possible with today's technology to get something that is very big to be very small and still deliver a decent viewing-listening experience on a HD Screen while remaining iPod compatible at the same time.
Only drawback is computing power. Even the 3GHz Mac Pro is too slow to do this in rapid time. So it takes a more time than the programs lengths to do right now that should in future take only a few minutes each. I'm hoping that amount of power will be with us by 2008 or 2009. It's a fundamental challenge that needs to get solved before what I am doing can have mass appeal. It's almost tlike a full itme job - no it is a full time job. Except I'm not getting paid to do it. :eek:
MacMan86
Apr 23, 04:11 PM
It's all somewhat speculation until we hear Apples response.
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
True dat ... This is going to be my first iMac ... I have never owned an apple computer before .. Bought my first iPhone last year
... iPhone 4 ... That was such a wonderful day ... Can't wait
Congrats!
True dat ... This is going to be my first iMac ... I have never owned an apple computer before .. Bought my first iPhone last year
... iPhone 4 ... That was such a wonderful day ... Can't wait
Congrats!
Spoony
Apr 26, 02:02 PM
Also i've never had a Mac.
Does apple use the term "applications" for their software as opposed to "programs" like windows.
If that is the case all Apple is doing is shortening their Mac name Applications to App. Everyone else is just copying them.
Everyone else can call them programs and lets call it a day.
Does apple use the term "applications" for their software as opposed to "programs" like windows.
If that is the case all Apple is doing is shortening their Mac name Applications to App. Everyone else is just copying them.
Everyone else can call them programs and lets call it a day.
kadajawi
Sep 6, 10:13 AM
The 24" iMac can be upgraded to a 7600GT video card. Anyone know how decent that is? What about the x1600?
Somewhat decent, a bit faster than the 6600GT, less power consumption IIRC. Just look out for normal reviews in the PC territory, that should give you an idea. I think it would be a decent choice in a sub-$1000 computer... over that I'd be expecting something better. Still, the 6600GT which I have is pretty decent, can play most games at a good resolution and high quality settings.
I'm going to buy the basic Mini... the size makes the difference, since it's going to be used at different locations (every few months in a different country ;) ). A superdrive would be nice, but not neccessary.
Anyone knows if student discount and the "free printer" works with refurbs too?
Somewhat decent, a bit faster than the 6600GT, less power consumption IIRC. Just look out for normal reviews in the PC territory, that should give you an idea. I think it would be a decent choice in a sub-$1000 computer... over that I'd be expecting something better. Still, the 6600GT which I have is pretty decent, can play most games at a good resolution and high quality settings.
I'm going to buy the basic Mini... the size makes the difference, since it's going to be used at different locations (every few months in a different country ;) ). A superdrive would be nice, but not neccessary.
Anyone knows if student discount and the "free printer" works with refurbs too?
Small White Car
Aug 29, 09:17 AM
How much would it hurt Apple to just double the height of the Mini and put a 1.83 GHz Conroe (Allendale) in there and a 3.5" Hard Drive? I'm pretty sure no-one would be whining about that. It would also get the price back down to $499 easy!
Oh, yeah, of course that is MY fantasy too. I'd love for them to beef up the mini at a cost of size only. I'd be the first to buy one of those.
I'm afraid, however, that Apple was very successful at convincing people that the mini is not at all like the old cube Mac. That was good since it had the reputation of being overpriced, but it also means that I can't see Apple making the mini any bigger. To do so would make it look like they were headed back that way. Even if the price got lower it would be an image they didn't want to encourage.
Oh, yeah, of course that is MY fantasy too. I'd love for them to beef up the mini at a cost of size only. I'd be the first to buy one of those.
I'm afraid, however, that Apple was very successful at convincing people that the mini is not at all like the old cube Mac. That was good since it had the reputation of being overpriced, but it also means that I can't see Apple making the mini any bigger. To do so would make it look like they were headed back that way. Even if the price got lower it would be an image they didn't want to encourage.
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.
.JPG "shoes in selena gomez who says")
Jswoosh
Apr 19, 12:49 PM
Yes haha this made my day. Looking forward to my first iMac!!
miamiracing
Jan 27, 08:08 AM
here my G
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8002/ashleyqq.jpg
of course i got it fully loaded with Bose Sound etc.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/69/ashley2d.jpg
on the far left in the snow last night
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6651/ashley3p.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8002/ashleyqq.jpg
of course i got it fully loaded with Bose Sound etc.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/69/ashley2d.jpg
on the far left in the snow last night
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6651/ashley3p.jpg
surroundfan
Sep 6, 09:56 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
The Superdrive option in the base model has gone.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
The Superdrive option in the base model has gone.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
ffakr
Nov 25, 05:32 PM
Dell is setting the pricing. It's not about the vendor costs.. it's all about what vendors think customers will pay.
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
bit density
Mar 7, 05:20 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.
Diesel has the advantage of longer carbon chains which represents more power per volume than gasoline. On a joule level gas engines are on par.
But because of the greater energy difference, this is important for use in commercial engines that are meant to tow or carry tremendous amounts of weight, like trucks and ships. But especially trucks. This allows engines to be significantly smaller for the weight that they have to carry than diesel.
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.
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.
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.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Diesel has the advantage of longer carbon chains which represents more power per volume than gasoline. On a joule level gas engines are on par.
But because of the greater energy difference, this is important for use in commercial engines that are meant to tow or carry tremendous amounts of weight, like trucks and ships. But especially trucks. This allows engines to be significantly smaller for the weight that they have to carry than diesel.
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.
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.
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.
lordonuthin
Apr 14, 06:26 PM
So I should put the -bigadv into my i7, it's not a great i7 I think its at 1.66ghz and in a laptop. Should I risk it? How can I maximise the PPD from my i7 as its only doing like 1-2k a day I think.
1.66 Ghz and a laptop isn't going to make it for bigadv units they need to be completed within about 3-4 days to make it worthwhile and I doubt your machine would make that time frame. An overclocked i7 920 at about 3-4? Ghz will work. My i7 920 is not overclocked so I don't do bigadv units on it and it also is running 3 gpu's so it has some overhead from them.
1.66 Ghz and a laptop isn't going to make it for bigadv units they need to be completed within about 3-4 days to make it worthwhile and I doubt your machine would make that time frame. An overclocked i7 920 at about 3-4? Ghz will work. My i7 920 is not overclocked so I don't do bigadv units on it and it also is running 3 gpu's so it has some overhead from them.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 05:37 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed?
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:41 PM
I;m going to go out on a limb and preemptively complain my MacPro 1.1 isn't supported :( and is only as configurable as an iMac...the irony...
You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now. It might not be 'officially' supported but you can still do it.
Please don't put an AMD 5XXX series into the new iMacs! :(
If they do it will for sure be only in the low-end 21.5" iMac (5670).
You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now. It might not be 'officially' supported but you can still do it.
Please don't put an AMD 5XXX series into the new iMacs! :(
If they do it will for sure be only in the low-end 21.5" iMac (5670).
Horrortaxi
Mar 19, 09:15 AM
Look, you don't have to call people names....
Whose calling you names? I'm agreeing with Krizoitz, who said that your petition is a Waste of Money, Brains and Time (WOMBAT).
Whose calling you names? I'm agreeing with Krizoitz, who said that your petition is a Waste of Money, Brains and Time (WOMBAT).
arn
Jan 11, 08:01 PM
Maybe it would be called the AirMac. That would be an interesting name instead of the MacBook Air.
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
AirMac is actually the name of an Apple product in Japan. I believe its just an Airport
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMac
arn
dukebound85
Apr 12, 06:11 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
having driven a manual for over 10 years, it gets annoying quite often...
-Don
having driven a manual for over 10 years, it gets annoying quite often...
freeny
Sep 6, 09:49 AM
Just as others, I am waiting on the merom MBP. People are ansy about this because the current MBP is known to those who knew about the merom as a "place holder" until the actual install of the merom. the merom was built for laptops and of course the laptops will be the last machines to actually recieve it. The order in which apple is updating their computers with this new chip is not logical to the consumer but may very well be logical to apple $$$.
WeegieMac
Apr 2, 12:55 PM
THANK YOU!
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
I find Safari 5.1 far better than Safari 5.0.4 on Snow Leopard.
No comments:
Post a Comment