gigidey
May 7, 06:37 PM
You do not pay Google but advertisers on your splash pages pay Google. You help them make far more money than you would pay for the service and you do that for them for free. And spread the word.
On behalf of all Google stockholders worldwide, thank you for being one of our minions.
Rocketman
You make it sound like Google making money is a bad thing. The reason so many people use Google is because they don't mind advertisements. Also, people who use Google's services are no more "minions" than Apple users, they just use what they feel is best.
On behalf of all Google stockholders worldwide, thank you for being one of our minions.
Rocketman
You make it sound like Google making money is a bad thing. The reason so many people use Google is because they don't mind advertisements. Also, people who use Google's services are no more "minions" than Apple users, they just use what they feel is best.
LagunaSol
Apr 7, 03:58 PM
Apple is anticompetitive and should be shut down. By producing products customers want when others in the industry can't, they are forcing the competition out of business.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
deputy_doofy
Aug 3, 11:01 AM
I'm impatient now. Must... have... new MBP w/C2D.
:D
:D
deadkennedy
Apr 26, 04:34 PM
I remember the days when fanbois claimed this day will never happen.
Anyway, it will be a tough battle, I'm still not convinced Android is any better than iOS. I think Apple will fall to around 20% for both smartphone and PC market, but will maintain 50% at tablet. This is still a HUGE number for both segments.
Anyway, it will be a tough battle, I'm still not convinced Android is any better than iOS. I think Apple will fall to around 20% for both smartphone and PC market, but will maintain 50% at tablet. This is still a HUGE number for both segments.
doctor-don
Apr 21, 11:10 PM
It seems the present size could be reduced to the 5 x 19 size without turning the optical drives vertical. The tower configuration would still be oriented vertically, and many mounts are available to attach it under a desk. Optical drives don't need to be phased out because they are needed for writing CD / DVD back-ups
What I would like to see is an air filtration system that will prevent all of the dust from getting into everything inside my MP. I can add my own filter, but that might not be advisable due to the fan having to work overtime, and that could lead to heat problems.
Perhaps the overall weight could be reduced in this rumored size reduction.
When prices drop substantially, SSDs will be a good storage plan. However, that may not be in the next couple of years, so the present drive bay size should not be reduced.
What I would like to see is an air filtration system that will prevent all of the dust from getting into everything inside my MP. I can add my own filter, but that might not be advisable due to the fan having to work overtime, and that could lead to heat problems.
Perhaps the overall weight could be reduced in this rumored size reduction.
When prices drop substantially, SSDs will be a good storage plan. However, that may not be in the next couple of years, so the present drive bay size should not be reduced.
scu
Nov 22, 03:08 PM
Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I remember when Napster and Rio laughed at the iPod and iTunes, and 5 years later.:rolleyes:
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I remember when Napster and Rio laughed at the iPod and iTunes, and 5 years later.:rolleyes:
gnasher729
Aug 7, 04:12 PM
I thought the Woodcrest processors were unsuited for multi-processor configurations. Anyone with more info?
You got the exactly the wrong way round. Conroe can only be used in single chip/dual core configurations, Woodcrest allows dual chip/quad core.
You got the exactly the wrong way round. Conroe can only be used in single chip/dual core configurations, Woodcrest allows dual chip/quad core.
mashinhead
Aug 11, 10:06 AM
MacBook and MacBook Pro are soldered. So no, you can't change it.
The iMac and MacMini are socketed.
will there be a third party company that offers these upgrades to consumers?
The iMac and MacMini are socketed.
will there be a third party company that offers these upgrades to consumers?
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Mattie Num Nums
May 4, 03:56 PM
What about Enterprise users?
Full of Win
Apr 26, 02:39 PM
People can only take being treated like children under the thumb of Steve Jobs twisted moral code for so long. Good too see Android kicking butt and taking names.
moderately
Apr 7, 09:51 AM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
I do wonder if this is true. They may need the pressure to upgrade specs but the revolutionary products seem to come because that is their passion.
I do wonder if this is true. They may need the pressure to upgrade specs but the revolutionary products seem to come because that is their passion.
someguy
Jul 30, 09:10 AM
Not happening. Never in a million years. (Trying to reverse-jinx it.) :D
I've got a Nextel plan that I hate and a phone I can't stand (Motorola i830), so if this phone is reasonably priced and works on the Verizon network, it's mine for sure. :)
I've got a Nextel plan that I hate and a phone I can't stand (Motorola i830), so if this phone is reasonably priced and works on the Verizon network, it's mine for sure. :)
Full of Win
Apr 23, 07:03 PM
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
rwilliams
Mar 28, 10:31 AM
what an overly dramatic confused statement
You have to consider who's making that statement.
You have to consider who's making that statement.
Optimus Frag
May 6, 04:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Not gonna happen. Just isn't.
I can't even see them switching to ARM for their ultra portables like the Air.
UNLESS...
Apple already a running version of OSX working on existing ARM like the secret version of Intel OSX they 'announced' at switch.
I'm more inclined to believe that Apple have a back up version of ARM compatible OSX working in their labs and this the reason for the rumour of a possible change.
But I'd put money on Intel keeping the gig.
Not gonna happen. Just isn't.
I can't even see them switching to ARM for their ultra portables like the Air.
UNLESS...
Apple already a running version of OSX working on existing ARM like the secret version of Intel OSX they 'announced' at switch.
I'm more inclined to believe that Apple have a back up version of ARM compatible OSX working in their labs and this the reason for the rumour of a possible change.
But I'd put money on Intel keeping the gig.
lilo777
Mar 29, 10:48 AM
not really true. it depends on what kind of storage options they are currently running, there are many devices and programs out there that eliminate this kind of redundancy and odds are amazon is using them right now.
The fact that they offer free space for MP3 files purchased from Amazon clearly indicates that those files be stored in a single copy.
The fact that they offer free space for MP3 files purchased from Amazon clearly indicates that those files be stored in a single copy.
arnizzlewhizzle
Jul 30, 04:15 PM
do you think they'd make it work with cingular and the rest, or do think they'd make their own service like helio?
goMac
Apr 18, 03:39 PM
Have you seen Windows GUI? It's also almost identical - rows of icons and task bar at the bottom. Did Microsoft sue Apple? No.
That's because Microsoft copied Apple (or NeXT really.) The NeXT dock predates the taskbar in Windows, and at the time a lot of people felt that's where Microsoft got the taskbar from.
If you go back to Windows 3.1, no taskbar. And then suddenly Windows 95 which shipped after NeXTStep, there is a taskbar.
That's because Microsoft copied Apple (or NeXT really.) The NeXT dock predates the taskbar in Windows, and at the time a lot of people felt that's where Microsoft got the taskbar from.
If you go back to Windows 3.1, no taskbar. And then suddenly Windows 95 which shipped after NeXTStep, there is a taskbar.
jholzner
Aug 11, 09:48 AM
Wait a second...if they release it in Paris, won't it no longer qualify for the free ipod?!? :(
It still will qualify. The promo runs through the 16th of September and the Expo ends on the 16th. You'll just have to order it ASAP once it's announced.
It still will qualify. The promo runs through the 16th of September and the Expo ends on the 16th. You'll just have to order it ASAP once it's announced.
polaris20
Apr 18, 03:55 PM
Can only be 1 reason, Apple are worried.
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
If Apple cannot beat them....they sue them. Way to go Apple, you are devoid of morals and innovation.
When can we officially say that Apple is now the New Microsoft?
You guys clearly have no idea how patents work.
Absolutely not True......they MUST sue or they lose rights to the patent. Its the way the system works
No. They're protecting their IP.
Ding ding! We have a couple winners. Finally someone on MR that gets it.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
If you hate Apple then why are you doing here?
Because it's Mac Rumors. Where the trolls/Apple bashers roam.
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
If Apple cannot beat them....they sue them. Way to go Apple, you are devoid of morals and innovation.
When can we officially say that Apple is now the New Microsoft?
You guys clearly have no idea how patents work.
Absolutely not True......they MUST sue or they lose rights to the patent. Its the way the system works
No. They're protecting their IP.
Ding ding! We have a couple winners. Finally someone on MR that gets it.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
If you hate Apple then why are you doing here?
Because it's Mac Rumors. Where the trolls/Apple bashers roam.
Don't panic
May 6, 08:37 PM
it's quicker because we can explore two room each round instead of one, so we gain one turn.
the draw back from the strategy is mainly that one of the groups might loose out on a treasure, but since we already explored this rooms, and we have to re-search them only for traps, that part is moot.
this will apply only fron the next round, but by the rules we have to be two groups by then.
we will still be 'together, and we can merge back in a group any time.
anyways. without further ado,
We split
ucfgrad is now his own (single) group
Loras group moves to the next (previous room).
ufcgrad, now you should move to the room with us, and as soon it's our round again, you should explore the room. after that, I will move our group to the next room, then in your second tunr you move and in our second turn we explore that room.
the draw back from the strategy is mainly that one of the groups might loose out on a treasure, but since we already explored this rooms, and we have to re-search them only for traps, that part is moot.
this will apply only fron the next round, but by the rules we have to be two groups by then.
we will still be 'together, and we can merge back in a group any time.
anyways. without further ado,
We split
ucfgrad is now his own (single) group
Loras group moves to the next (previous room).
ufcgrad, now you should move to the room with us, and as soon it's our round again, you should explore the room. after that, I will move our group to the next room, then in your second tunr you move and in our second turn we explore that room.
batchtaster
Nov 3, 05:23 AM
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
Fascinating. Organized anarchy.
Fascinating. Organized anarchy.
MacVault
Aug 7, 03:23 PM
I read a comment on Maccentral from someone saying they were going to wait for a "true" dual processor. What is not true about the Mac Pro configuration? Or did that poster not know what he was talking about?
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق