blakdragun
Feb 24, 06:43 PM
Here's my mbp setup.
nice clean setup.
nice clean setup.
hayesk
Apr 12, 10:10 PM
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
Bertmg
Mar 24, 10:57 AM
Is time for Apple to get edgy again. imagine the possibilities of merging two not as popular but full featured products!!!
If Apple were to merge iPod classic with Apple TV we can have a non existent a carry on TiVo/iPod gadget!
selena gomez round and round
and Round” music video,
103Selena Gomez - Round and
Selena Gomez amp; The Scene A
round amp; round,
Selena Gomez – Full Round And
Selena Gomez plays the chic
The Round and Round singer
Gomez, The, Scene, Round,
Selena Gomez And The Scene
new video Round and Round.
Selena Gomez quot;Round and Roundquot;
Round amp; Round Music Video
Selena Gomez – Full Round And
Round amp; Round – music video
selena gomez round and round
If Apple were to merge iPod classic with Apple TV we can have a non existent a carry on TiVo/iPod gadget!
iSamurai
Mar 22, 08:23 PM
They should make brief questions to Steve Jobs the same way he answers:
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
You reckon he actually responds to fan mails on his iPhone? :D
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
You reckon he actually responds to fan mails on his iPhone? :D
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:37 PM
Aw, man! I was sooooo ready to shell out for a new 23" iMac, might it come out. But now it's on the verge of actually doing so, I'm starting to get greatly mostly underwhelmed by the rumours. Merom? What? I want a Conroe, at least in the 23" top model. And 2,33GHz? The Conroe goes way up to 2,93GHz. I'm sure the Merom line goes higher than 2,33GHz...
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
First of all, have you seen the price on a 2.93 Conroe. It is up there. It would only by BTO, and cost you a bundle.
Second, if they release a 23" iMac, you can stop all the talk about a headless Mac, there won't be one. Sorry.
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
First of all, have you seen the price on a 2.93 Conroe. It is up there. It would only by BTO, and cost you a bundle.
Second, if they release a 23" iMac, you can stop all the talk about a headless Mac, there won't be one. Sorry.
zap2
Aug 24, 06:02 PM
I'd be shocked if we saw Merom based Minis before Merom based MBP and MB.. maybe a Core Duo upgrade, to hold us over? A price drop and high speed Yonah?
OR wishful thinking from someone who doesn't want his Core Duo Mini to seem old(even though its not)
OR wishful thinking from someone who doesn't want his Core Duo Mini to seem old(even though its not)
Lollypop
Jul 20, 07:47 AM
What makes you think that you have to do that?
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
I have used Linux before, admit that I gave up with linux with Suse 9. The point I was trying to make with the package manager is that its not easy to go out and find something, every time you either have to find a package for your specific distribution or have it "built" for your distro. If you look at the way the mac works now I can drag the aduim icon to a remote drive, and from almost any machine that meets the basic specs I can then double click that app, even if its on a network drive, it will run, can you say the same for Linux?
By unification I meant giving a constant user experience with singal points of administration, management ect. Some of my previous sessions with linux the applications did not always fully adhere to guidelines that were set out by KDE, whatever theme i choose, it didnt adapt to it for example. I fully admit im not a linux guru, and that things very likely have changed, but my perception is that every distro comes with a boat load of software on the DVD or via download, if you want to get something thats not listed it becomes a bit more difficult. There is the issue of building your own kernel and then software for it but other than bulding the kernel i have no knowlede of any related issues.
The mac advantage is that its a bit easier to get, install and run applications than windows, and IMO linux as well. Thats a advantage apple should leverage and try and sell more if they are going to sell more machines and increase the market share of the entire platform.
I agree with kalisphoenix to an extent when he says that the linux people dont want a single unified distro, the linux crowd doesnt want a true singular unfied platform, why is there a few big distros out there after years of linux development, why are there so many niche ones, and why do linux users argue with others over their favorite distro? Diversity and flexability is one of the strenghts of Linux, its users know that, and having a single distro that does everything will counter that strength, they also know that.
Im not taking on linux, to the contrary I believe linux has a critical place, I personally believe that its diversity/flexibility is one of the reasons it hasnt concored the desktop market, (peolpe want the plain and simple windows thing, to much options makes it overly complex), diversity/flexibility is the same reason linux has concored the server market.
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
I have used Linux before, admit that I gave up with linux with Suse 9. The point I was trying to make with the package manager is that its not easy to go out and find something, every time you either have to find a package for your specific distribution or have it "built" for your distro. If you look at the way the mac works now I can drag the aduim icon to a remote drive, and from almost any machine that meets the basic specs I can then double click that app, even if its on a network drive, it will run, can you say the same for Linux?
By unification I meant giving a constant user experience with singal points of administration, management ect. Some of my previous sessions with linux the applications did not always fully adhere to guidelines that were set out by KDE, whatever theme i choose, it didnt adapt to it for example. I fully admit im not a linux guru, and that things very likely have changed, but my perception is that every distro comes with a boat load of software on the DVD or via download, if you want to get something thats not listed it becomes a bit more difficult. There is the issue of building your own kernel and then software for it but other than bulding the kernel i have no knowlede of any related issues.
The mac advantage is that its a bit easier to get, install and run applications than windows, and IMO linux as well. Thats a advantage apple should leverage and try and sell more if they are going to sell more machines and increase the market share of the entire platform.
I agree with kalisphoenix to an extent when he says that the linux people dont want a single unified distro, the linux crowd doesnt want a true singular unfied platform, why is there a few big distros out there after years of linux development, why are there so many niche ones, and why do linux users argue with others over their favorite distro? Diversity and flexability is one of the strenghts of Linux, its users know that, and having a single distro that does everything will counter that strength, they also know that.
Im not taking on linux, to the contrary I believe linux has a critical place, I personally believe that its diversity/flexibility is one of the reasons it hasnt concored the desktop market, (peolpe want the plain and simple windows thing, to much options makes it overly complex), diversity/flexibility is the same reason linux has concored the server market.
Bregalad
Aug 29, 02:58 PM
To cut the price of the Mini by $100, Apple better hope Intel are doing a "Half Price" cut which is extremely unlikely. 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!
I've been saying since the mini came out that it's too small. Even if it had been twice as big it still would've been very small. Going bigger would have allowed a 3.5" HD and a more standard logic board. Such a mega-mini would really be the media storage machine people are dreaming about because a 250GB HD is about the same price as an 80GB notebook drive while offering much better performance.
Of course I've also been saying that Apple needs to have a machine in the iMac price range that doesn't include a display. Remove the LCD, put in a desktop CPU and an upgradable video card and you're back where you started cost wise. The Mac Pro is such a good deal for people who need that kind of power that having a mini tower or desktop with fewer drive bays at the 20" iMac price point wouldn't take away any Pro sales. I think such a machine would attract a significant number of current PC users who can't cope with the all-in-one, can't upgrade anything concept of the iMac.
Having another tower would also drive Cinema Display sales. Maybe not a huge amount given that Apple displays are significantly more expensive than the competition, but any increase would be good for Apple's bottom line.
So why don't I like iMacs? In 14 years of owning Macs I've upgraded, on average, every two years. It makes absolutely no sense to toss aside a perfectly good display every two years when I can simply plug a new computer into it. When there is a major improvement in display technology I can change on my own timetable. Oh and I recently upgraded my RAM without having to remove any first and installed a second HD in preparation for Time Machine. Try doing that with an iMac.
I've been saying since the mini came out that it's too small. Even if it had been twice as big it still would've been very small. Going bigger would have allowed a 3.5" HD and a more standard logic board. Such a mega-mini would really be the media storage machine people are dreaming about because a 250GB HD is about the same price as an 80GB notebook drive while offering much better performance.
Of course I've also been saying that Apple needs to have a machine in the iMac price range that doesn't include a display. Remove the LCD, put in a desktop CPU and an upgradable video card and you're back where you started cost wise. The Mac Pro is such a good deal for people who need that kind of power that having a mini tower or desktop with fewer drive bays at the 20" iMac price point wouldn't take away any Pro sales. I think such a machine would attract a significant number of current PC users who can't cope with the all-in-one, can't upgrade anything concept of the iMac.
Having another tower would also drive Cinema Display sales. Maybe not a huge amount given that Apple displays are significantly more expensive than the competition, but any increase would be good for Apple's bottom line.
So why don't I like iMacs? In 14 years of owning Macs I've upgraded, on average, every two years. It makes absolutely no sense to toss aside a perfectly good display every two years when I can simply plug a new computer into it. When there is a major improvement in display technology I can change on my own timetable. Oh and I recently upgraded my RAM without having to remove any first and installed a second HD in preparation for Time Machine. Try doing that with an iMac.
prady16
Oct 23, 08:12 AM
I hope to have it order Tuesday and delivered by the end of the week?
Any chance?
I highly doubt it!
Any chance?
I highly doubt it!
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 23, 11:19 PM
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
HA! that's not to shabby off of a hood ornament.
HA! that's not to shabby off of a hood ornament.
p0intblank
Aug 6, 09:23 PM
Hahaha, I love Apple and their humorous banners! They always think of something funny. I can't wait to hear Steve's random cracks on Windows while giving his keynote. The crowd always gets a kick out of them. :p
Compile 'em all
Jan 6, 05:52 AM
11.05 New kernel for Mac OS X. Mac OS X high level subsystems built upon Windows. New operating system. "Mac OS W". Leopard is Mac OS W 11.0.
11.08 "Best of Apple, Best of Microsoft, everything will 'just work' from now on"
WTF!
11.08 "Best of Apple, Best of Microsoft, everything will 'just work' from now on"
WTF!
copykris
Nov 25, 02:12 PM
They're just ****ing sunglasses...
haha
so true
haha
so true
popelife
Jan 2, 05:37 AM
I think we'll see... update to FCP because it is time
Something might be happening there. My order for a custom-build MBP and FCP Universal upgrade is taking a month... not because building the MBP is taking so long (3 days to put it together), but because the FCP upgrade is delayed.
How long can it take to get a small box of DVDs off a shelf? Hmm...
(OTOH, if there's a big FCP update, I'm sure I wouldn't get it for the �35 I paid).
Something might be happening there. My order for a custom-build MBP and FCP Universal upgrade is taking a month... not because building the MBP is taking so long (3 days to put it together), but because the FCP upgrade is delayed.
How long can it take to get a small box of DVDs off a shelf? Hmm...
(OTOH, if there's a big FCP update, I'm sure I wouldn't get it for the �35 I paid).
atomheartmother
Sep 20, 07:50 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silicone-Case-Cover-Skin-Apple-iPod-Touch-4-4th-Gen-/360297195747?pt=PDA_Accessories&hash=item53e362e8e3
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
What was the checkout like? Did you have to go through their checkout? I'm always suspicious of those places, and am concerned that they're using unsecured special checkouts and/or are stealing identities. And I'm not usually a suspicious person.
But it's hard to resist for $1.00. The Griffin Reveal I bought was a ridiculous $25.
Do these fit on the cases snugly or are they kind of loose?
And I used a Nikon D5000 with 50mm F/1.4G lens. :cool:
What was the checkout like? Did you have to go through their checkout? I'm always suspicious of those places, and am concerned that they're using unsecured special checkouts and/or are stealing identities. And I'm not usually a suspicious person.
But it's hard to resist for $1.00. The Griffin Reveal I bought was a ridiculous $25.
Do these fit on the cases snugly or are they kind of loose?
Veinticinco
Mar 23, 04:21 AM
As for the Classic, no reason to update it, no reason to EOL it either.
I still have my "CarPod" for road trips - an old but pristine 30GB iPod Photo, still love it.
Bit of custom job when I got bored a while back - white body but with a red (U2) clickwheel, white centre button, and a smooth brushed Alu back.
I still have my "CarPod" for road trips - an old but pristine 30GB iPod Photo, still love it.
Bit of custom job when I got bored a while back - white body but with a red (U2) clickwheel, white centre button, and a smooth brushed Alu back.
Cougarcat
Mar 22, 04:07 PM
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.
Tony
Flash is still expensive, that's why we haven't seen anything bigger than the 64 GB touch yet.
As for the iPod Classic, the reason it wasn't updated last year was because the 220 GB drive didn't exist. It would require very little effort on their part to swap out the 160 drive with this one, so if they do keep it around I'd be surprised if they didn't upgrade it come september.
Tony
Flash is still expensive, that's why we haven't seen anything bigger than the 64 GB touch yet.
As for the iPod Classic, the reason it wasn't updated last year was because the 220 GB drive didn't exist. It would require very little effort on their part to swap out the 160 drive with this one, so if they do keep it around I'd be surprised if they didn't upgrade it come september.
dmaxdmax
Nov 28, 01:23 PM
Erm... So you're calling a slightly reheated Toshiba Gigabeat-POS with pseudo-WiFi (sure, it may be fully enabled in the future, but with a screen with that resolution, it'd be preety much useless) a "moterately high ante"?
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
<snip>
And by the way, there's already a "Gates' sucessor", and I'm talking about the CEO title, not the Chairman... Come to think about it, Ballmer is already a "chair-man" of sorts... :D And we all know how smart that guy is. :rolleyes:
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
ldkaplan
Jan 2, 03:07 PM
You probably don't like penut butter cups either :-(
I have a treo 700p...I'd much rather have a mac version of some sort to keep my calendar, listen to music and take calls. A multi-tool might not be for everyone, but there are plenty of folks that would love it. And what if it had video chat as well?
I really like the iTV/iSight rumors. Someone needs to bring video chat for the home user to the mainstream. And if it's not dependent upon having a mac desktop (ie running some sort of light OS) then it would be a huge market hit, IMHO.
A phone is best used to make phone calls not for music. If you want to listen to music theres a nano... I dont like the idea of putting them together compromising each other.
Phone Compromises:
Worst reception or larger size due to the added multimedia.
Buttons are geared towards music instead of calls and stuff that is useful for making calls.
iPod Compromises:
Shorter battery life than iPod
No Line-out for superior audio quality.
Worst navigation for selecting songs.
I like a great phone and a great iPod. Not an alright phone and alright iPod in one place so I cant just carry one or the other.
I have a treo 700p...I'd much rather have a mac version of some sort to keep my calendar, listen to music and take calls. A multi-tool might not be for everyone, but there are plenty of folks that would love it. And what if it had video chat as well?
I really like the iTV/iSight rumors. Someone needs to bring video chat for the home user to the mainstream. And if it's not dependent upon having a mac desktop (ie running some sort of light OS) then it would be a huge market hit, IMHO.
A phone is best used to make phone calls not for music. If you want to listen to music theres a nano... I dont like the idea of putting them together compromising each other.
Phone Compromises:
Worst reception or larger size due to the added multimedia.
Buttons are geared towards music instead of calls and stuff that is useful for making calls.
iPod Compromises:
Shorter battery life than iPod
No Line-out for superior audio quality.
Worst navigation for selecting songs.
I like a great phone and a great iPod. Not an alright phone and alright iPod in one place so I cant just carry one or the other.
cmaier
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
this commercial makes ipad seemed like it's only for kids.
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Seriously?! How long have you been waiting? Since last refresh?
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
Keep dreaming. They couldn't even get a Radeon HD 5770, let alone a 5850. The best that could be done was a 5750 in the 27", and while it's not a terrible GPU, it's certainly nowhere near pro-level.
Lulz to that. It's not like those things weren't key to the Early 2011 MacBook Pros being as critically acclaimed as they are now.
No. While Mac mini updates could be right around the corner, the two are on different release timelines and aren't always released at the same time. Essentially, it's irrelevant.
If the 5750 was the best that we got on the highest end model of current, then I'd be shocked if we got anything past 6770. We're definitely not getting cards that use up as much power as the iMac itself or require a second six-pin connector in the Desktop PCIe equivalent.
Since July 2010; not even a full year really.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen.
How many of those machines have you seen naked? As in, without the glass or panel with bare innards in full view? My guess is not very many. They don't have the room to engineer a better video card in the 27". It's almost a wonder they even have the room for something like the Radeon HD 5750 in what they have now. It's not like they took the design of the 21.5", gave it a larger chasis and screen and suddenly had more room to play with. Even so, as it stands, both sizes of iMac get extraordinarily hot. Sure, the 5750 in the Mid-2010 27" model draws less heat than the 4850 in the Late-2009 27" model, but that difference is negligible and even with a 6 series GPU's improvement, I doubt the difference will be substantial enough to warrant THAT much more power relative to the 6 series' lineup.
So, no, they couldn't engineer THAT much better of a card if they wanted. Not without making the iMac thicker than it already is. But it's Apple, they never do.
jav6454
Mar 25, 03:06 PM
The cpus used in the dual-cpu MP are 80-95W parts (top is the 95W Xeon X5670 right now), so it's give or take ~190W.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
digitalbiker
Sep 7, 11:29 PM
"G5" is processor branding which refers to the 970 chipset, not the design of the machine itself, so you are using that terminology incorrectly. Do people go around saying, "Gee, that new Pentium Dell sure is nice!" :p :D It's the equivalent of saying that you like the design of the V10 BMW when in fact you mean the M5. If the current iMac design only housed G5 chips, and was changed when the Intel transition occurred, then fine, that model could be associated with the G5 chip, however this is obviously not the case.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
kadajawi
Sep 6, 11:21 AM
Now that the Minis are Core Duo I like it more. Even though it's still $599 ($579 Edu) for the low end, it is at least not a solo. The Mini is still a good computer for a low end price range, even if it isn't the very newest processor available. I would definitely recommend a Mini, but since the iMac is so close in the Edu department, it is a little tough for the 1.83 clockspeed.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
No comments:
Post a Comment