al2o3cr
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
Reasonably plausible - by then, Nokia will probably have a dozen suck-phones that are roughly comparable to *today's* phones that'll all run WP7 and sell like hotcakes in the developing world...
cube
Apr 22, 11:55 AM
If Blu-Ray was going to happen it would've been in the refresh of 2011 MBP's. I can't imagine the optical drive being around much longer in anything other than the Mac Pro.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
realberen
May 3, 12:07 PM
I'm chasing the 32GB RAM option (http://blog.saers.com/archives/2011/05/03/new-mid-2011-imacs-and-32gb-ram/) for the 27" iMac
toddybody
Mar 22, 03:08 PM
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
24 inch useless? Thanks god, for telling us what's what.
24 inch useless? Thanks god, for telling us what's what.
KPOM
Apr 22, 02:18 PM
Been waiting to get one for a while now. :o
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
There was a settlement. Intel gave NVIDIA $1.5 billion to go away. Unfortunately, that means Intel integrated graphics for the foreseeable future.
I do hope that the backlit keyboard comes to the 11.5 inch.:rolleyes:
Bummed about Intel's graphics. I was hoping in some kind of settlement. :(
There was a settlement. Intel gave NVIDIA $1.5 billion to go away. Unfortunately, that means Intel integrated graphics for the foreseeable future.
apolloa
Apr 30, 06:09 PM
Thing is though... if the new top end MacBook Pro 2.3 can keep up with and beat even a current 8 core Mac Pro in some instances and trounce the quad core model, just how powerful is a top end Sandy Bridge iMac going to be :eek::confused:
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
CalBoy
Mar 30, 11:49 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
jjgb
Oct 12, 10:39 PM
Just uploaded a photo I took today of the 5th Av. Apple Store red logo. Check it out here: Red logo @ Apple Store 5th Av. (http://jj.gbtopia.com/blog/2006/10/12/red-logo-ny-apple-store-5th-av/)
aswitcher
Sep 4, 06:56 PM
Not too many details: would this stream movies already downloaded or let you download/view simultaneously (like view on demand)?
Ideally both. If you have the bandwidth then you can start watching right away. I suspect though it will not be streaming, but rather download via torrent environment to ease bandwidth on Apple...
Ideally both. If you have the bandwidth then you can start watching right away. I suspect though it will not be streaming, but rather download via torrent environment to ease bandwidth on Apple...
funkyT80
Mar 22, 03:07 PM
wait, since when did apple make computers? :rolleyes:
iGary
Sep 10, 04:27 PM
I hate to say it, but my guess is this is an iPod event, not a MB MBP event. ;)
econgeek
Apr 14, 12:21 PM
We really should be hoping that Thunderbolt succeeds and USB 3 fails. USB has always been a hack for lowest common denominator PCs and PC manufacturers who were not interested in investing in quality external communication.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
Eidorian
May 3, 10:25 AM
Still USB 2.0
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
miketcool
Sep 13, 09:49 PM
So the search feature is related to dialing? Man, this is only throwing fuel into an uniterrested group of people worn from constant rumorings of whimsical phones.
Cartaphilus
Nov 13, 01:16 PM
Rogue Amoeba offers terrific programs. I don't use Speakers on my iPhone very often, but Airfoil and its associated programs (Sunflower, Instant Hijack) run on my MBP very frequently.
I certainly understand Apple's need to protect its intellectual property and to ensure there is a clear distinction in consumers' minds between what portion of the iPhone experience reflects Apple's efforts and what portion is provided by others. Nonetheless, when dealing with partners whose employees tend to be computer science experts rather than legal experts, and where the partner has demonstrated a real commitment to Apple's platforms and a real ability to deliver Apple-worthy products, I think Apple would be wise to go the extra mile to make life easier for these partners.
As another poster implied, when some amateur developer gripes about Apple's approval process it's one thing, but when a developer of the caliber of Rogue Amoeba backs away, it's time for Apple to respond constructively.
I certainly understand Apple's need to protect its intellectual property and to ensure there is a clear distinction in consumers' minds between what portion of the iPhone experience reflects Apple's efforts and what portion is provided by others. Nonetheless, when dealing with partners whose employees tend to be computer science experts rather than legal experts, and where the partner has demonstrated a real commitment to Apple's platforms and a real ability to deliver Apple-worthy products, I think Apple would be wise to go the extra mile to make life easier for these partners.
As another poster implied, when some amateur developer gripes about Apple's approval process it's one thing, but when a developer of the caliber of Rogue Amoeba backs away, it's time for Apple to respond constructively.
iGary
Sep 14, 10:11 AM
MBP C2D IS going to happen. sometime between now and (for example) a year from now. saying "there is no way they will get announced on the 24th becuase its a photo event" is quite simply ignorant. it most certainly MAY happn, and the other machines that were released at the last photo event as mentioned above proove there is even a precident for it happening. i personally think its seems reasonably likely it will happen on the 24th, tho i would not bet on it.
edit: removal of an uneccesary comment
Not happening on the 24th fo any reason - photo, computer, or other wise.
edit: removal of an uneccesary comment
Not happening on the 24th fo any reason - photo, computer, or other wise.
Flowbee
Aug 31, 07:26 PM
$14.99 for new movies, but $9.99 for older films supposedly.
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... it's really easy to hook an iPod up to a TV (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/) to play videos. Just one cable. You're not limited to the iPod screen or your computer screen. Download movie>copy to iPod>plug into any TV with composite video and audio jacks (yellow, red, white). It's not DVD quality, but it's pretty good. Apple could certainly make it better while still keeping download times reasonable. I downloaded the second season of Lost - all 24 episodes - from the iTMS in less than 4 hours (I'm not sure how much less because I went out while they were downloading). Anyway, that's around 1,032 minutes of video. I'm guessing Apple could raise the video quality and still keep the d/l time of a 120 minute movie to under an hour, which would be reasonable, IMO.
$10 - $15 movie downloads won't replace Netflix for me, but buying DVDs is now a thing of the past. In fact, I'm in the process of selling my prized DVD collection (http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdz-2000QQhtZ-1). I look forward to downloadable "rentals."
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... it's really easy to hook an iPod up to a TV (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/) to play videos. Just one cable. You're not limited to the iPod screen or your computer screen. Download movie>copy to iPod>plug into any TV with composite video and audio jacks (yellow, red, white). It's not DVD quality, but it's pretty good. Apple could certainly make it better while still keeping download times reasonable. I downloaded the second season of Lost - all 24 episodes - from the iTMS in less than 4 hours (I'm not sure how much less because I went out while they were downloading). Anyway, that's around 1,032 minutes of video. I'm guessing Apple could raise the video quality and still keep the d/l time of a 120 minute movie to under an hour, which would be reasonable, IMO.
$10 - $15 movie downloads won't replace Netflix for me, but buying DVDs is now a thing of the past. In fact, I'm in the process of selling my prized DVD collection (http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdz-2000QQhtZ-1). I look forward to downloadable "rentals."
ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 02:29 AM
Well I will openly admit that I have a low opinion of those who get burned in investment scams. If you're stupid enough to think you're going to get the kind of returns promised to you by the likes of Madoff, then you deserve to lose your money. But that's off topic.
-Don
No, I think it is right on target. Because, it shows your attitude in life. Your mom or you cause an accident on purpose, to teach a valid lesson (as you put it), but the other person is to blame for not being courteous. Someone scams people out of money, but it is the victims' fault for being stupid.:rolleyes:
It clearly shows that you think that if you are strong enough or smart enough that you are entitled to take whatever you can without thought to legality or what is morally right or wrong.
I find it sad, that at 16 you are morally and ethically bankrupt.
-Don
No, I think it is right on target. Because, it shows your attitude in life. Your mom or you cause an accident on purpose, to teach a valid lesson (as you put it), but the other person is to blame for not being courteous. Someone scams people out of money, but it is the victims' fault for being stupid.:rolleyes:
It clearly shows that you think that if you are strong enough or smart enough that you are entitled to take whatever you can without thought to legality or what is morally right or wrong.
I find it sad, that at 16 you are morally and ethically bankrupt.
Dagless
Apr 28, 03:22 PM
Apple "beats" Microsoft?
But who has the strongest dad? :rolleyes:
But who has the strongest dad? :rolleyes:
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:36 PM
"Shooting To Wound" is purely a product of television, movies, and video games. In real situations where gunfire is exchanged, milliseconds count, and center mass until the target is down is the ONLY reality.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
FX120
Apr 16, 12:50 PM
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection.
Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other.
Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?
I never said it would go away. It said it will be used for the same things USB 2 is used for which is low bandwidth peripherals like mice which you don't need USB 3 for which is why it is essentially a useless upgrade.
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive.
Yes, believe it or not we are talking about the future and the future for Thunderbolt looks a hell of a lot better than the future of USB 3 since it isn't locked at a certain bandwidth. Technology moves fast. The reason Intel decided to support USB 3 is simply because it is (as they said) complimentary to Thunderbolt. Once again you use Thunderbolt for things that need the speed and you use USB for low bandwidth peripherals.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3.
It has USB compatibility, hell it has compatibility with pretty much any IO on the planet. The connector is simply a means to an end and it scales much better for the future when said port is smaller.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
balamw
Aug 23, 05:33 PM
I guess Creative just broke even. :)
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
GuyV
Oct 13, 03:08 AM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
OwlsAndApples
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
No comments:
Post a Comment