savar
Sep 1, 11:58 AM
MacOSXRumors now claims (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/09/01/23-inch-imac-coming-on-september-the-12th/) that Apple will be revamping the iMac line with the new Core 2 Duo (Merom) processor at this event, with the additional introduction of a 23" iMac.
Nooo! I kept telling myself I would upgrade my 6 year-old broken down G4 when they finally made an iMac with a bigger screen, thinking it would never happen. Why did Apple have to go and do this before I have the money saved up for it?
Edit: Do you all think that this will mean less of that "chin" that the iMac has now? And/or thinner? That would be pretty slick.
Nooo! I kept telling myself I would upgrade my 6 year-old broken down G4 when they finally made an iMac with a bigger screen, thinking it would never happen. Why did Apple have to go and do this before I have the money saved up for it?
Edit: Do you all think that this will mean less of that "chin" that the iMac has now? And/or thinner? That would be pretty slick.
chuckles:)
Dec 28, 10:38 AM
untill they release video content internationally, a lot of us will have no use for any of this. itunes video in canada by macworld?
NewSc2
Nov 29, 04:49 PM
New features? I can see it now...
Nike+iTV. Track your calories, heart rate, and more, while watching TV.
Nike+iTV. Track your calories, heart rate, and more, while watching TV.
Chundles
Jul 18, 03:16 AM
List of things I don't want to hear one word about at the WWDC:
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
gwuMACaddict
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
Like O'reileys viewers play and listens to Rap. Apple is lost when it comes to marketing and building computers for the masses.
but they buy it for their kids... c'mon, apple is HARDLY lost when it comes to marketing... many of my PC friends rave about the way apple has marketed the iPod and their iMac... many of them are switchers because the comercials got them interested
but they buy it for their kids... c'mon, apple is HARDLY lost when it comes to marketing... many of my PC friends rave about the way apple has marketed the iPod and their iMac... many of them are switchers because the comercials got them interested
tangerineyum
Jul 13, 10:38 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
all going to be standard ? how long did it take for wireless g and dvd burners to become standard? :rolleyes:
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
all going to be standard ? how long did it take for wireless g and dvd burners to become standard? :rolleyes:
skunk
Mar 27, 08:59 AM
He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral.Really? How shocking! Imagine, the US European Command, headed by an American! Next you'll be telling us that the US President is an American, too.
CIA
Apr 13, 01:11 AM
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
I second this.
I second this.
milo
Nov 16, 10:45 AM
31% is a little disappointing for 2x the number of cores.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
But you're missing the fact that the 8 cores are at a slower clock speed. If you compare 4 versus 8 at the same clock, you're looking at a respectable 47% improvement.
I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?
Apple REALLY needs to get apps like quicktime and iTunes to run on any number of cores. Even if they don't use multiple cores on a single file, it should be a piece of cake to get them to process multiple files at once. If I want to convert eight files, it should just run each conversion at once on a separate core - it's the equivalent of running eight copies of the app (which shouldn't be necessary).
I'd love to see them run Logic Pro - it supports four cores finally, and I'd like to know if they just upped it to four or if it goes beyond that.
entropys
Apr 19, 04:42 PM
Apart from the obvious (sandy bridge and thunderbolt) what I would like to see is an SSD solution like in the MBA, say about 64GB is probably enough to store the OS and applications, with a 1TB HDD as the base configuration.
That would give the speed boost to the OS and app launching and operations, without the space problems of a bolt-in SSD, and would leave the cheap, easily upgradable storage for.....storage.
That would give the speed boost to the OS and app launching and operations, without the space problems of a bolt-in SSD, and would leave the cheap, easily upgradable storage for.....storage.
rasmasyean
Apr 4, 05:07 PM
Well...at least someone from MSNBC agrees with me. :p
In Libya, West showcases new weapons for sale
Potential buyers from India to Brazil get to see Europe, US jets in action http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42420553/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
I woulda thought the Middle East is most interested, but I suppose any emerging markets is fair game! :D
In Libya, West showcases new weapons for sale
Potential buyers from India to Brazil get to see Europe, US jets in action http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42420553/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
I woulda thought the Middle East is most interested, but I suppose any emerging markets is fair game! :D
codymac
Apr 20, 04:23 PM
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
That not all the manuals you've driven have been, bluntly, crap cars to begin with.
:)
That not all the manuals you've driven have been, bluntly, crap cars to begin with.
:)
SciFrog
Jan 30, 08:54 AM
Congrats for 5 mio! Our output has dropped a bit, we need to find some bigadv crunchers. Our SMP crunchers are going to take a hit up to 30% also...
trevorlsciact
May 2, 08:17 PM
All you have to do is drag .app in trash then instead of "empty trash", use secure empty trash so it can find the rest of the files:D
Unless I am very mistaken, that is not how that works.
Unless I am very mistaken, that is not how that works.
CalBoy
Mar 20, 02:15 PM
For the sake of consistency with the App Store and its censorship policies, it should be removed for containing offensive, disgusting content.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
I agree.
I think that if the App Store wasn't regulated, this app would clearly have standing to be in there, as would an app that was misogynistic, anti-semitic, or pro-flatulence.
However, Apple (and Steve Jobs in particular) has said that the App Store is meant to "protect" people from certain things (namely porn). Since Apple has the right to determine what goes into its store, I think it's fair to ask that an app that is more offensive than porn (most people disagree with this type of "therapy" and approve of homosexuality compared to the level of disagreement there is with porn) should be similarly removed from the App Store.
I think there's also a Pandora's Box in that if this App delves into trying to "cure" people of some non-existent psychosis, could Apple be guilty of aiding and abetting the practice of medicine/psychology without a license? I'm not saying there's an answer to this, but it certainly does leave the door open to more problems.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
I agree.
I think that if the App Store wasn't regulated, this app would clearly have standing to be in there, as would an app that was misogynistic, anti-semitic, or pro-flatulence.
However, Apple (and Steve Jobs in particular) has said that the App Store is meant to "protect" people from certain things (namely porn). Since Apple has the right to determine what goes into its store, I think it's fair to ask that an app that is more offensive than porn (most people disagree with this type of "therapy" and approve of homosexuality compared to the level of disagreement there is with porn) should be similarly removed from the App Store.
I think there's also a Pandora's Box in that if this App delves into trying to "cure" people of some non-existent psychosis, could Apple be guilty of aiding and abetting the practice of medicine/psychology without a license? I'm not saying there's an answer to this, but it certainly does leave the door open to more problems.
Outrun1986
Oct 12, 04:38 PM
Does anyone know where I can get a maroon case?
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 20, 07:26 PM
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
boncellis
Sep 6, 07:39 PM
:p I concur. iTunes is getting too busy with Music/Audiobooks/Podcasts/TV Shows and Video already...
As some have suggested perhaps "Showtime" refers to something like a new app...
B
It could be, but Apple has so much invested in the iTunes "brand" that I don't see them moving away from it. I agree they really should improve it though, the video playback and iTMS browsing need to be faster.
As some have suggested perhaps "Showtime" refers to something like a new app...
B
It could be, but Apple has so much invested in the iTunes "brand" that I don't see them moving away from it. I agree they really should improve it though, the video playback and iTMS browsing need to be faster.
Rot'nApple
Apr 2, 08:06 PM
I really like this ad. Maybe this will be the new direction of Apple's marketing?
I liked the ad too. It seems Apple was finally addressing the bazillion iPad wannabes and to some extent the gazillion iPhone wannabes, who's commercials tout the latest tech specs or a keyword like 'lightening fast' but yet fail to demo the everyday usefulness. Something Apple has long touted in its iPhone commercials let alone their iPad ones.
Beat that Xoom! I don't want to feel cacooned by my tablet and I don't want my eyes turning into the next Terminator. I want technology to get out of the way and just work while the ad points to what would be useful if I purchase one.
Apple, for it's iOS devices, have nailed that roadmap! :cool: :apple:
I liked the ad too. It seems Apple was finally addressing the bazillion iPad wannabes and to some extent the gazillion iPhone wannabes, who's commercials tout the latest tech specs or a keyword like 'lightening fast' but yet fail to demo the everyday usefulness. Something Apple has long touted in its iPhone commercials let alone their iPad ones.
Beat that Xoom! I don't want to feel cacooned by my tablet and I don't want my eyes turning into the next Terminator. I want technology to get out of the way and just work while the ad points to what would be useful if I purchase one.
Apple, for it's iOS devices, have nailed that roadmap! :cool: :apple:
capran
Nov 15, 01:45 PM
It turns out the 2.66 Ghz 8 core chips are about the same price as 3.0 Ghz 4 core chips. So the price differential will be product positioning, not raw cost.
Rocketman
Correction: You mean 2.66 GHz 4 Core chips versus 3.0 GHz 2 Core chips.
Woodcrest is a dual-core chip, Clovertown is 4. The Mac Pro uses 2 Woodcrests for 4 cores, a Mac Pro with 2 Clovertowns has 8 cores.
Rocketman
Correction: You mean 2.66 GHz 4 Core chips versus 3.0 GHz 2 Core chips.
Woodcrest is a dual-core chip, Clovertown is 4. The Mac Pro uses 2 Woodcrests for 4 cores, a Mac Pro with 2 Clovertowns has 8 cores.
Benguitar
Nov 25, 08:58 PM
But it's a Ferrari.
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
reel2reel
Apr 12, 09:18 PM
What was the render dialog ?
The ancient "rendering video..." progress bar you get to watch, which locks you out of every other function.
The ancient "rendering video..." progress bar you get to watch, which locks you out of every other function.
Clive At Five
Nov 28, 10:37 AM
Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox and likely to lose hundreds of millions on their Zune attempt. iPod sales have been profitable for Apple since their introduction. How one measures success in this industry can't always be marketshare.
Yes, the XBox was sold at a loss, but now they are a powerful and permanent player in the multi-billion-dollar gaming console industry. They'll make back their billions by the time "XBox 2πr" comes out.
The Zune is a different story:
[Zune] will have to win on features and integration -- so they are pretty much doomed. They have essentially bet the whole farm on the wireless exchange.
Nail on head, my friend. Nail on head.
See ya later, Zune.
-Clive
Yes, the XBox was sold at a loss, but now they are a powerful and permanent player in the multi-billion-dollar gaming console industry. They'll make back their billions by the time "XBox 2πr" comes out.
The Zune is a different story:
[Zune] will have to win on features and integration -- so they are pretty much doomed. They have essentially bet the whole farm on the wireless exchange.
Nail on head, my friend. Nail on head.
See ya later, Zune.
-Clive
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق