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
bjdku
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
This is stated so matter of fact. There is no ? in the title. How certain is arn? He always uses ?
Macnoviz
Sep 5, 02:28 AM
:confused:
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
movies.apple.com is where they keep the movies that stream on the site (like the get a mac ads)
you normally can't browse to them, but if you look at the page info using Firefox, you can see on a page where the media is located. That's how you can download those movies withouth getting quicktime pro
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
movies.apple.com is where they keep the movies that stream on the site (like the get a mac ads)
you normally can't browse to them, but if you look at the page info using Firefox, you can see on a page where the media is located. That's how you can download those movies withouth getting quicktime pro
starflyer
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
It would be more interesting to see their PROFIT SHARE predictions.
Aldaris
Mar 22, 02:32 PM
I think you'll find that rumors of the Mac Pro's death are greatly exaggerated.
Thunderbolt honestly wouldn't bring very much to a Mac Pro right now. They have access via PCI expansion to drives, etc. that keep pace with and even beat Thunderbolt in some instances. As the tech matures it will outpace others and eventually find its way to the Mac Pro. Yes, the iMacs, and the iToys get more and more powerful with every generation...but then, so do the Pros...they all have a space on Apple's buffet bar.
I agree, I think it'll be great for the portable's and consumer items, to be able to customize certain peripherals to the individual needs, at the moment I have a PowerBook G4, MacBook Pro, Power Mac G4, Power Mac G5, all for certain tasks, I could solve all this with a thunderbolt equipped MacBook pro and Mini... Think of the space saving's there...
The Pro will be around for a lot longer, it just serves a Pro/sumer market, the processors they sport generally come later down the pipe anyway like sandy bridge xeons in Q3/Q4.
Thunderbolt honestly wouldn't bring very much to a Mac Pro right now. They have access via PCI expansion to drives, etc. that keep pace with and even beat Thunderbolt in some instances. As the tech matures it will outpace others and eventually find its way to the Mac Pro. Yes, the iMacs, and the iToys get more and more powerful with every generation...but then, so do the Pros...they all have a space on Apple's buffet bar.
I agree, I think it'll be great for the portable's and consumer items, to be able to customize certain peripherals to the individual needs, at the moment I have a PowerBook G4, MacBook Pro, Power Mac G4, Power Mac G5, all for certain tasks, I could solve all this with a thunderbolt equipped MacBook pro and Mini... Think of the space saving's there...
The Pro will be around for a lot longer, it just serves a Pro/sumer market, the processors they sport generally come later down the pipe anyway like sandy bridge xeons in Q3/Q4.
hayesk
May 3, 12:41 PM
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
TB has two 10 Gbps channels. A display takes up one of them. To power a second display, you could use the other channel, but you'd need some kind of breakout box that housed a video card.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels. A display takes up one of them. To power a second display, you could use the other channel, but you'd need some kind of breakout box that housed a video card.
cirus
Apr 22, 02:18 PM
This may have been asked and answered before, but is the common belief that USB and Firewire will be completely gone soon? For example, my Macbook Air has room for only two ports - a mini-display drive, and a USB drive. Is the idea that the Thunderbolt drive will replace the USB, and that purchasers of the new Air will use an adapter of some sort for "old" USB peripherals moving forward?
I don't think so. It would kinda destroy the purpose of an ultraportable if you have to carry an adapter around. The minidisplay will be replaced by thunderbolt instead. USB is still used a lot (currently) so it would be like shooting yourself in the foot to remove it (printers, USB memory keys, mice, etc.)
I don't think so. It would kinda destroy the purpose of an ultraportable if you have to carry an adapter around. The minidisplay will be replaced by thunderbolt instead. USB is still used a lot (currently) so it would be like shooting yourself in the foot to remove it (printers, USB memory keys, mice, etc.)
moot
Aug 31, 11:30 AM
This has to be iPod related. There is that rumor of a large shipment from Asia.
4God
Aug 28, 12:07 PM
I'll bet we see a Mini refresh tomorrow.
KPOM
Apr 22, 11:50 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
Improved when compared to the old Intel Integrated Graphics.
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 18, 03:38 PM
It doesn't need to be a virus. They're relatively rare issues these days even on Windows. Malware is about stealing identities (big money) not hackers playing games with machines (kiddy stuff). It's far more likely to target the iPad or iPhone than anything else, but saying it cannot happen is like telling Japan two years ago that their plants would be in meltdown after an earthquake some day. They would have laughed in your face. After all, it didn't happen in the past 40 years there. That obviously proves it could NEVER happen. :p
In any case, it's clear to me there are some really delusional people on these forums. Instead engaging in an utterly pointless argument with a bunch of stubborn fanboys that couldn't be convinced USB3 was a good thing unless Steve personally e-mailed them, I'll just leave you to your false sense of security and just smirk the day you find your identity stolen, especially those that feel the need to insult other people (2 cents comments, etc.) based on their own ignorance.
In any case, it's clear to me there are some really delusional people on these forums. Instead engaging in an utterly pointless argument with a bunch of stubborn fanboys that couldn't be convinced USB3 was a good thing unless Steve personally e-mailed them, I'll just leave you to your false sense of security and just smirk the day you find your identity stolen, especially those that feel the need to insult other people (2 cents comments, etc.) based on their own ignorance.
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 04:05 PM
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
wizard
Sep 9, 11:38 AM
Sounds like a set of chips to me ;)
dave
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom, composed to CPU (Yonah), chipset (Intel Express 945) and WLAN ()Intel PRO/Wireless). The amount of RAM might be limited due to timing-issues and the like.
dave
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom, composed to CPU (Yonah), chipset (Intel Express 945) and WLAN ()Intel PRO/Wireless). The amount of RAM might be limited due to timing-issues and the like.
max pl
Mar 29, 12:21 PM
It would be more interesting to see their PROFIT SHARE predictions.
yes profit is so, so important for us consumers.
:rolleyes:
yes profit is so, so important for us consumers.
:rolleyes:
deputy_doofy
Sep 14, 09:50 AM
My prediction:
Definiantly:
Aperture 2.0 ($299)
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
Maybe:
iPhone with 3.2 mpx camera by Canon
New displays
PowerBook G5
Unikely:
802.11 n (in MacPro and MacBook Pro)
New iSight with IR reciever
MacBook
I'm thinking 2 of those listed under "maybe" are definites. :p
Definiantly:
Aperture 2.0 ($299)
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
Maybe:
iPhone with 3.2 mpx camera by Canon
New displays
PowerBook G5
Unikely:
802.11 n (in MacPro and MacBook Pro)
New iSight with IR reciever
MacBook
I'm thinking 2 of those listed under "maybe" are definites. :p
Rocketman
Sep 19, 03:28 PM
I'll post.
The primary objection of studios to iTS (iTunes Store) is not rental vs. ownership. It is pissing off its physical channel "partners".
Steve Jobs has a history of pissing off physical channel partners. When the online Apple Store was vastly enlarged and promoted, the value added dealers lost premium CPU and software sales to Apple itself, since they have a price fixing contract. Consumers were no worse off ordering direct with free shipping than going down to a dealer if they did not need advise for the product purchase. In addition many asked questions of local dealers then purchased online thereafter.
This was further an issue when Apple added their own dealer network (stores) which were to a large degree competing with the long-standing dedicated dealer network as well as the mass merchandising dealers, who have been really hit and miss over the years. That has resulted in low mindshare as compared to Apple and indy dealers who people at least KNOW have the stuff if they are inclined toward those channels.
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics. So much so, it is Wal-Mart who is pressuring studios to shun iTS, and to a large degree it is actually working.
Not for long.
Rocketman
The primary objection of studios to iTS (iTunes Store) is not rental vs. ownership. It is pissing off its physical channel "partners".
Steve Jobs has a history of pissing off physical channel partners. When the online Apple Store was vastly enlarged and promoted, the value added dealers lost premium CPU and software sales to Apple itself, since they have a price fixing contract. Consumers were no worse off ordering direct with free shipping than going down to a dealer if they did not need advise for the product purchase. In addition many asked questions of local dealers then purchased online thereafter.
This was further an issue when Apple added their own dealer network (stores) which were to a large degree competing with the long-standing dedicated dealer network as well as the mass merchandising dealers, who have been really hit and miss over the years. That has resulted in low mindshare as compared to Apple and indy dealers who people at least KNOW have the stuff if they are inclined toward those channels.
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics. So much so, it is Wal-Mart who is pressuring studios to shun iTS, and to a large degree it is actually working.
Not for long.
Rocketman
kansast
Sep 13, 09:38 PM
I am not really crazy about this design. Having to slide the click-wheel down every time I need to use my phone doesn't sound like fun (plus, what would this thing look like open? ...what I'm picturing is ugly).
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I would have thought the same thing.. but I used a Sony Erricson phone for awhile.. iWalk I think they called it ?? but it had a simplified buttons under the screen, if you needed to "Dial" a number you could flip out the buttons. But most often you are either "answering" your phone, or pulling up a number from the directory, either case you don't need a full number pad key for. As it was, I almost never revealed the keypad on that phone.
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I would have thought the same thing.. but I used a Sony Erricson phone for awhile.. iWalk I think they called it ?? but it had a simplified buttons under the screen, if you needed to "Dial" a number you could flip out the buttons. But most often you are either "answering" your phone, or pulling up a number from the directory, either case you don't need a full number pad key for. As it was, I almost never revealed the keypad on that phone.
ChazUK
Apr 22, 01:39 AM
So Apple's method could be more efficient their side, offering a spotify type model where everyone accesses the same iTunes purchased track (except this time they own it) instead of Amazon's where each indivdual track is stored in their "digital locker"?
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 06:57 PM
im so tired about apple having partnerships with groups i dont like. to each his own but why does U2 have to keep pushing their own ipod, i thought the last one sucked. give me a band i actually like
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
RollTide
Apr 30, 01:35 PM
When the hell are they gonna re-implement spaces !!@$%#^&(&)(#
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You'll be looking forward to lion then. Not a new Mac.
ndpitch
Mar 30, 12:24 PM
Microsoft is suing homebuilders for offering "Windows" in their homes. Instead, they need to refer to them as "transparent viewing portals".
Haha! Made me laugh out loud at my desk.
Apple got there first and beat everyone to the punch. Microsoft should just accept it.
Haha! Made me laugh out loud at my desk.
Apple got there first and beat everyone to the punch. Microsoft should just accept it.
JAT
Mar 30, 12:10 PM
Its important to always note context.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS....
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is incorrect. "Windows" the trademarked term did not come up yesterday like "appstore". It was first used for a new version of DOSshell, all it could claim was a gui interface on MS-DOS, aka "windows". MS-DOS was an OS, Windows through at least Win98 was not.
But that fight was resolved (poorly) years ago, people should stop using it as a reference.
Windows may be generic but only when you're trying to trademark the term for actual windows. Windows doesn't describe an OS....
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is incorrect. "Windows" the trademarked term did not come up yesterday like "appstore". It was first used for a new version of DOSshell, all it could claim was a gui interface on MS-DOS, aka "windows". MS-DOS was an OS, Windows through at least Win98 was not.
But that fight was resolved (poorly) years ago, people should stop using it as a reference.
asdf542
Apr 14, 01:44 PM
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
