Frobozz
Mar 25, 09:40 AM
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
MacRumors
May 2, 04:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/mac-os-x-lion-to-bring-ios-like-uninstall-process-for-mac-app-store-apps/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg
iJawn108
Jan 11, 09:11 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...
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
ssk2
Apr 3, 12:32 PM
After watching the ad 3 times, I *think* I like it. It treads just the right sign of 'schmoltzy' without going too far over. It (the device) looks gorgeous too, from a purely personal view.
It hasn't won me over (iPad v Playbook), but there's not doubting its a good ad.
It hasn't won me over (iPad v Playbook), but there's not doubting its a good ad.
DrFrankTM
Sep 1, 02:28 PM
Um, hate to break it to ya, but Apple sells television shows.
Yeah, I am vaguely aware of it. IMO, the ethernet port is the new TV tuner, but I think Apple has much higher margins on the hardware than on the digital content that they sell through the iTMS. Since the iTMS exists mostly to fuel hardware sales, if it was easy to include a TV tuner in a 23-inch iMac, Apple would do it as it would help sell more Macs.
I was just suggesting that the reason Apple doesn't want to include TV tuners in their products is that it would "regionalize" their products in a way they are trying to avoid as much as possible, I think. I guess I should have been more clear.
Yeah, I am vaguely aware of it. IMO, the ethernet port is the new TV tuner, but I think Apple has much higher margins on the hardware than on the digital content that they sell through the iTMS. Since the iTMS exists mostly to fuel hardware sales, if it was easy to include a TV tuner in a 23-inch iMac, Apple would do it as it would help sell more Macs.
I was just suggesting that the reason Apple doesn't want to include TV tuners in their products is that it would "regionalize" their products in a way they are trying to avoid as much as possible, I think. I guess I should have been more clear.
dongmin
Jan 13, 01:34 AM
Hmm maybe they could get around this by shipping bluetooth headphones with it.
And the no-plug dock charging sounds good too.
Imagine a ultra portable macbook with no ports.
It would have a docking station with a lot of ports in the dock but it would all wirelessly be transfered to the macbook.
No clicking into the dock. Just set it down.
If the dock could be integrated into the desk it could look like you are just setting it on the desk.
But it is wirelessly sending power and signals with the dock which has usb, firewire, large HD, optical drive, headphone jacks, and other ports that are hidden under the desk.
Edit: just realized that in the time I took to reply someone else already pointed out bluetooth headphones.
So the only way to use a thumb drive or download photos from a camera or sync your iPod/iPhone is through your dock when you're at home???
This IS the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
And the no-plug dock charging sounds good too.
Imagine a ultra portable macbook with no ports.
It would have a docking station with a lot of ports in the dock but it would all wirelessly be transfered to the macbook.
No clicking into the dock. Just set it down.
If the dock could be integrated into the desk it could look like you are just setting it on the desk.
But it is wirelessly sending power and signals with the dock which has usb, firewire, large HD, optical drive, headphone jacks, and other ports that are hidden under the desk.
Edit: just realized that in the time I took to reply someone else already pointed out bluetooth headphones.
So the only way to use a thumb drive or download photos from a camera or sync your iPod/iPhone is through your dock when you're at home???
This IS the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:25 PM
They could have simplified the whole process in the following way:
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
grouse
Jul 20, 08:35 AM
If desktops sales are down 23%, is that revenue or units?
If it's revenue, then it's hardly surprising. If the most expensive models are essentially stalled waiting on new chips/new enclosures/new universal binary apps from Quark and Adobemedia, as backed up by reports that apple store staff in the last quarter have actually been advising punters NOT to buy the G5 towers, then actually that's pretty much as expected I'd have thought.
If new Mac Pro models are just around the corner then you'd expect a big leap for the 4th quarter. I, for one, am part of the higher spend pent-up demand sector. And don't forget, bureaux, design studios, architects, 3D motion design/modeller etcs have big budgets and if they pause on buying it is going to skew the Apple market. As everyone says, expect a big leap in the Desktop Pro market over the next two quarters.
If it's revenue, then it's hardly surprising. If the most expensive models are essentially stalled waiting on new chips/new enclosures/new universal binary apps from Quark and Adobemedia, as backed up by reports that apple store staff in the last quarter have actually been advising punters NOT to buy the G5 towers, then actually that's pretty much as expected I'd have thought.
If new Mac Pro models are just around the corner then you'd expect a big leap for the 4th quarter. I, for one, am part of the higher spend pent-up demand sector. And don't forget, bureaux, design studios, architects, 3D motion design/modeller etcs have big budgets and if they pause on buying it is going to skew the Apple market. As everyone says, expect a big leap in the Desktop Pro market over the next two quarters.
longsilver
Sep 5, 08:19 AM
Looks like something's happening :)
mints
Mar 22, 09:38 PM
I've been patiently waiting for a decent update to the classic for a few years. 120GB was not enough to justify buying a new one, since I still wouldn't have enough space to put all of the music I've accumulated through the years. Right now I've got about 1-1.5TB of music and I'm constantly adding more as I go through my old vinyl and rip things that are out of print.
Please don't kill the classic.
Please don't kill the classic.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 2, 09:17 PM
Keep up that attitude and continue wondering why no one talks with you as you type on your laptop in the middle of the coffee shop across from De Anza college. Sure, you may have helped get DB2 started and you still work in a DOS window but don't blame your wife for leaving you as you worked late at night too long. How much of the money from the IPO went to family attorney and court fees?
De Anza college? Is that anywhere near Faber College, Flounder? :cool:
De Anza college? Is that anywhere near Faber College, Flounder? :cool:
DrEasy
Mar 23, 02:08 AM
With a bigger hard drive, it would be conceivable to think of the iPod classic as a portable hard drive that you could also use for Time Machine backups. I would have a greater incentive in backing up my files if I could use my iPod that is always nearby. It would back up my files as I'm recharging it.
Or look at it the other way: there's plenty of portable hard drives in the market, but how many of you carry one "just in case"? Whereas if the portable hard drive doubles up as a very competent MP3 player, you will always have it with you.
Now there should be some data protection scheme so that if someone steals your iPod they can't use all your data. Encryption + some kind of pairing with your machines should do the job.
I know I'd buy such a thing...
Or look at it the other way: there's plenty of portable hard drives in the market, but how many of you carry one "just in case"? Whereas if the portable hard drive doubles up as a very competent MP3 player, you will always have it with you.
Now there should be some data protection scheme so that if someone steals your iPod they can't use all your data. Encryption + some kind of pairing with your machines should do the job.
I know I'd buy such a thing...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
Unggoy Murderer
Apr 3, 02:54 AM
That's probably one of the most powerful adverts I've ever seen. Apple really are geniuses, no wonder competitors think "How the ***** do they do it?".
Markleshark
Sep 6, 06:48 AM
Wow... Pleaseeeeeee let it be
Takuro
Jun 22, 12:31 PM
The form factor of an iMac just doesn't work nicely with the general way iOS is meant to be used. As mentioned by moneyman, there seems to be a rough adaptation for it if it's used in conjunction with a touch pad, but this still doesn't seem very likely. The only platform that would benefit largely with an iOS layer would be the MacBook line, which could easily enough use a touch-screen interface directly on the existing display without worrying about tired arms. However, this brings up another issue: It would cannibalize iPad sales and blur the defining line for that "intermediate" category of devices between iPhone and Mac that Jobs just finished touting about.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
hunkaburningluv
Mar 26, 08:18 PM
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
that's awfully nice of you.
Methinks you need yo get your head out of the clouds when it comes to hardcore gaming.
I'll agree that the future of casual games may be going in this direction, but core gamers will use this to supplement their gaming.
Come back when you can play gears, modern warfare or Uncharted and have the same or better tactile experience and I'll gladly eat my own words. Until then it's all a pipe dream.
You need a real dose of reality.
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Not exactly true:
PS3 games running in 1080p
Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA)
GT5 Prologue (demo) = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance = 1280x720 & 1920x1080 (no AA)
MLB09: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) or 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA
Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel = 1280x720 when sub-HD output selected, 1920x1080 for any HD output (no AA)
Virtua Tennis 3 = 1920x1080 (2x AA)
World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA)
there's probably a few more for the 360 - BUT, IMO resolution isn't the be all and end all of visuals, take the uncharted series, it isn't 1080p, but it's spectacular looking where as Sacred 2 looks like crap.
If Kinect wasn't the run away success it was, then yeah, I would have expected some announcement this or next e3 for the 360, but it looks like the Wii 2 will probably be announced first.
The PS3 will probably have some legs actually, as people get more and more used to the developer tools (as they are now) then we'll see more and more impressive titles graphically.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
you make a good point, but to really excel at gaming, you can't have a jack of all trades device - look at the PSP for instance- great wee machine, but it was far too spread, functionality wise to be a great success. For this device to appeal to the core gamer it needs to be designed specifically for core gaming, as it is the now (and there's nothing wrong with it this way) it's for casual gamers or 'pick up for 5 mins' kinda games
that's awfully nice of you.
Methinks you need yo get your head out of the clouds when it comes to hardcore gaming.
I'll agree that the future of casual games may be going in this direction, but core gamers will use this to supplement their gaming.
Come back when you can play gears, modern warfare or Uncharted and have the same or better tactile experience and I'll gladly eat my own words. Until then it's all a pipe dream.
You need a real dose of reality.
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Not exactly true:
PS3 games running in 1080p
Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA)
GT5 Prologue (demo) = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance = 1280x720 & 1920x1080 (no AA)
MLB09: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) or 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA
Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel = 1280x720 when sub-HD output selected, 1920x1080 for any HD output (no AA)
Virtua Tennis 3 = 1920x1080 (2x AA)
World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA)
there's probably a few more for the 360 - BUT, IMO resolution isn't the be all and end all of visuals, take the uncharted series, it isn't 1080p, but it's spectacular looking where as Sacred 2 looks like crap.
If Kinect wasn't the run away success it was, then yeah, I would have expected some announcement this or next e3 for the 360, but it looks like the Wii 2 will probably be announced first.
The PS3 will probably have some legs actually, as people get more and more used to the developer tools (as they are now) then we'll see more and more impressive titles graphically.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
you make a good point, but to really excel at gaming, you can't have a jack of all trades device - look at the PSP for instance- great wee machine, but it was far too spread, functionality wise to be a great success. For this device to appeal to the core gamer it needs to be designed specifically for core gaming, as it is the now (and there's nothing wrong with it this way) it's for casual gamers or 'pick up for 5 mins' kinda games
mrgreen4242
Jul 18, 08:21 AM
Well, I'll chime in to agree with a lot of you...
1) it HAS TO BE 480p widescreen or better. 480p would be acceptable - it's better than DVD (roughly the same overall image info, but it's a progressive source material, so no pulldown being done in the player, meaning just a tad nicer images AND it's not NTSC color, so you get an improvement there).
2) it needs to be on my TV, and that doesn't mean buy a $400 iPod to do it, either.
3) it needs to be cheap. I get all the movies I want from Netflix for under $20 a month. The only reason I would use this service is to get something right now on an impulse. which brings us to...
4) downloads can't be overnight. Should be able to start watching within half an hour, otherwise I'll go to video store and rent it for $2.50 on DVD.
Now, the only thing that could excuse any of these requirements would be...
5) release movies that are just out of theatres, but not yet on DVD. There's a market for that with people who don't like going to the theatre (expensive, noisy, etc) but don't like to wait for DVD.
#5 would excuse #3 and 4, but #1 and 2 are pretty non-negotiable for me.
I know, I'm asking for fast, cheap, and high-quality, where it's normally pick two, but there are already many options out there that make you pick two... Apple needs to provide all 3 if they want to sand out in the crowd.
1) it HAS TO BE 480p widescreen or better. 480p would be acceptable - it's better than DVD (roughly the same overall image info, but it's a progressive source material, so no pulldown being done in the player, meaning just a tad nicer images AND it's not NTSC color, so you get an improvement there).
2) it needs to be on my TV, and that doesn't mean buy a $400 iPod to do it, either.
3) it needs to be cheap. I get all the movies I want from Netflix for under $20 a month. The only reason I would use this service is to get something right now on an impulse. which brings us to...
4) downloads can't be overnight. Should be able to start watching within half an hour, otherwise I'll go to video store and rent it for $2.50 on DVD.
Now, the only thing that could excuse any of these requirements would be...
5) release movies that are just out of theatres, but not yet on DVD. There's a market for that with people who don't like going to the theatre (expensive, noisy, etc) but don't like to wait for DVD.
#5 would excuse #3 and 4, but #1 and 2 are pretty non-negotiable for me.
I know, I'm asking for fast, cheap, and high-quality, where it's normally pick two, but there are already many options out there that make you pick two... Apple needs to provide all 3 if they want to sand out in the crowd.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:08 PM
(Emphasis added.)
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
bommai
Nov 27, 01:56 PM
I don't think 17" is going to happen. I would rather Apple drop the price on the 20" drastically. $699 is way too much. Dell has two 20" widescreen monitors. One for the office crowd. It has a USB hub built-in, can rotate, has DVI, VGA and S-video inputs. It has identical specs to the Apple monitor. This monitor is about $350. You can get it for lower sometimes. I have one of these (an older model actually - and it cost $500 18 months ago).
Dell also has a new 20" widescreen that does not have USB hub, no rotation capability. However, it has a HDMI port with HDCP (High definition content protection). This is a requirement for HD-DVD and Bluray playback. This monitor is only $250. It has the same 1650x1050 resolution like the Apple 23". You can get the Dell 24" 1920x1200 LCD for $600. Paying $999 for Apple 23" is nuts!
I love my PowerMac G4, but Apple's display prices need to come down.
Also, my powermac is 3.5 years old and I would really like to buy a new MacProsumer. Something that is half the size of MacPro. Has one dual core Conroe, space for 2 HDs, space for one optical drive, 2 PCI express slots, firewire 800, 400, USB 2.0, 802.11g/n, bluetooth, optical audio in/out, DVI/HDMI with HDCP. I want all this to cost $1500 or less.
This would give me the flexibility to buy my own monitor and stay in the iMac arena. iMacs would still sell well for people that want all-in-one. Apple can sell this Conroe towers for business as well as people that want to upgrade. This machine is more of a successor to the PowerMac G4 compared to the MacPro. MacPro is overkill for most people for home use.
Dell also has a new 20" widescreen that does not have USB hub, no rotation capability. However, it has a HDMI port with HDCP (High definition content protection). This is a requirement for HD-DVD and Bluray playback. This monitor is only $250. It has the same 1650x1050 resolution like the Apple 23". You can get the Dell 24" 1920x1200 LCD for $600. Paying $999 for Apple 23" is nuts!
I love my PowerMac G4, but Apple's display prices need to come down.
Also, my powermac is 3.5 years old and I would really like to buy a new MacProsumer. Something that is half the size of MacPro. Has one dual core Conroe, space for 2 HDs, space for one optical drive, 2 PCI express slots, firewire 800, 400, USB 2.0, 802.11g/n, bluetooth, optical audio in/out, DVI/HDMI with HDCP. I want all this to cost $1500 or less.
This would give me the flexibility to buy my own monitor and stay in the iMac arena. iMacs would still sell well for people that want all-in-one. Apple can sell this Conroe towers for business as well as people that want to upgrade. This machine is more of a successor to the PowerMac G4 compared to the MacPro. MacPro is overkill for most people for home use.
SubaruNation555
Nov 24, 06:08 PM
HP ZR24w to replace my 23" Cinema Display. It seems there aren't many 24" IPS 16:10 monitors around for under $500.
http://p.gzhls.at/519550.jpg
http://p.gzhls.at/519550.jpg
Eolian
Sep 30, 08:38 AM
Well, I ended up grabbing a Vue, in the lime green flavor. I actually kinda like the color (and it's the only one BestBuy had in stock when I went, heh).
Fits snug, feels good and strong, I like it. Not terribly hard to get in and out.
I like the Grip Vue also, the one thing I don't like about this case is the little strip on the front that goes across (above) the docking port.
Mine (night sky) is a bit floppy there and feels like it could get worse with pulling the device in and out of pockets, backpacks, etc. I can see it tearing easily if snagged.
I understand that TPU is claimed to be quite durable and elastic, but I don't like being concerned about a $25 piece of formed plastic :(
I may return it just on this 'flaw.'
Crazy?
Fits snug, feels good and strong, I like it. Not terribly hard to get in and out.
I like the Grip Vue also, the one thing I don't like about this case is the little strip on the front that goes across (above) the docking port.
Mine (night sky) is a bit floppy there and feels like it could get worse with pulling the device in and out of pockets, backpacks, etc. I can see it tearing easily if snagged.
I understand that TPU is claimed to be quite durable and elastic, but I don't like being concerned about a $25 piece of formed plastic :(
I may return it just on this 'flaw.'
Crazy?
jonnysods
Apr 19, 07:43 PM
Very cool. We love our iMac 2010 i3 27" still, but I love to see this model grow and mature and get desktop components.
Couple more years!
Couple more years!
lordonuthin
Nov 26, 09:08 PM
congrats to SciFrog for getting 3 million points!
yeah i don't think we'll get those points back. oh well. i'm also thinking about getting something to fold on as well. i'm wondering, would have a machine and putting in several video cards and running the gpu2 in windows be better? or just an i7 and run bigadv units? i was hoping some i7 systems would go onsale, but i can't really find any under $1,000
Woo hoo, the big three O-O-O-O-O-O-O :p
It would be nice to see some comparisons of ppd for gpu vs bigadv, I'll try to find something.
well i finally got 2 million now. i started this thread on 10/4/2009. today is 11/26/2009. so what is that, 53 days? considering how long it took for me to get to 1 million to begin with, i'm pretty happy with that
Congrats! may the next mil go quickly by.
yeah i don't think we'll get those points back. oh well. i'm also thinking about getting something to fold on as well. i'm wondering, would have a machine and putting in several video cards and running the gpu2 in windows be better? or just an i7 and run bigadv units? i was hoping some i7 systems would go onsale, but i can't really find any under $1,000
Woo hoo, the big three O-O-O-O-O-O-O :p
It would be nice to see some comparisons of ppd for gpu vs bigadv, I'll try to find something.
well i finally got 2 million now. i started this thread on 10/4/2009. today is 11/26/2009. so what is that, 53 days? considering how long it took for me to get to 1 million to begin with, i'm pretty happy with that
Congrats! may the next mil go quickly by.
No comments:
Post a Comment