nospleen
Sep 10, 08:52 AM
My computers will of course not be slower. But the apps, on the other hand, will become more and more demanding. For example, I cant run Aperture on my MDD (2*1.25/2GB RAM/128MB VRAM). Hell, I cant even run Civ IV on it...lol
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
arn
Jul 14, 09:56 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
pyroza
Apr 25, 06:19 PM
Getting rid of the optical drive would be stupid. No way to burn CDs (yes, I buy CDs because I like supporting artists and I like higher quality music) and no way to watch DVDs (no DVD player or TV here in my dorm room).
p0intblank
Sep 14, 09:46 AM
YES!!! We just had an Apple event and we're having another one?! I love looking forward to these. Obviously Aperture 2.0 is going to be showed off, but what else? I'm hoping for new Cinema Displays, but that's kind of doubtful. Probably updated MacBook Pros will be announced. :)
Popeye206
Mar 29, 12:02 PM
What I don't get is....
Nokia = looser in smart phone market.
Microsoft = looser in smart phone OS market.
So... Looser + Looser = Winner?
I know Nokia has a huge installed base of feature phones, but they're going to have to really step it up to catch up in the smart phone market. Even the old #1 guys (RIM) can't keep up with iOS and Android.
Nokia = looser in smart phone market.
Microsoft = looser in smart phone OS market.
So... Looser + Looser = Winner?
I know Nokia has a huge installed base of feature phones, but they're going to have to really step it up to catch up in the smart phone market. Even the old #1 guys (RIM) can't keep up with iOS and Android.
Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 02:26 PM
What seriously kills me about all this is that those sensationalist chimpanzees from GP rally against a computer company that presently has roughly 6% (or less) of the computer market....almost every throw away computer I've ever seen were Compaqs, HP's, Dells, Gateways/e-Machines, and a few other generic crap boxes from some nameless plastic factory stuffing windoze in a toaster. Seriously, Greenpeace goofballs should stop stargazing up their rectums and take a look at the largest contributors of hardware refuse. Macs as far as I know are not easily tossed out. apple computers have been primarily hand me downs unless some terrible accident happened rendering it useless. seriously, no one throws away a functioning mac, unless they decided lead paint makes for good breakfast cereal.
How many of these sap-chugging numbskulls go after Dell for making computers that generally end up being sidewalk fodder? perhaps they should invest their energies into designing the green computer, since they seem to have so much gloriously skilled scientists at their disposal to expose the evil apple. Go team planet!
How many of these sap-chugging numbskulls go after Dell for making computers that generally end up being sidewalk fodder? perhaps they should invest their energies into designing the green computer, since they seem to have so much gloriously skilled scientists at their disposal to expose the evil apple. Go team planet!
M2M
Apr 11, 06:55 AM
Because the 3rd party device could be in your neighbours house so your neighbour can see or hear anything that is played through AirPlay from your devices without you knowing. And you might be playing stuff that you wouldn't want your neighbour to see.
Only if i set my neighbors device as a speaker in iTunes...which would happen not too often without me knowing.
Only if i set my neighbors device as a speaker in iTunes...which would happen not too often without me knowing.
peharri
Sep 18, 09:00 AM
You are right. I make a call. i expect to pay for it. i dont expect the person im calling to get billed for the damn call.
The other way of looking at it is that the mobile user has made a technology choice. They shouldn't expect other people to pay for their technology choice. A system where each person pays to connect to the network and decides how they want to pay for that is inherently fairer, even if it makes it harder for people to choose to subsidize the systems of others.
(Remember too that in the majority of cases, most US users have a fixed bill because of the high number of bundled minutes coupled with the huge unmetered portions of their bills. It's not the case that we get billed for the incoming call in the majority of cases. If it's made at peak time, from a different network, then yeah, we'll use bundled minutes, but most of us end up with large amounts of bundled minutes free at the end of the month despite this. And you never have to accept an incoming call.)
and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.
That doesn't sound like a bad plan, that's unusually good outside of the US from what I've researched, though most of my research has been limited to the UK.
i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.
If I were back in Britain, I couldn't substitute a cellphone for a landline because of the incoming calls issue. It's simply not fair to my family or friends to make them pay through the nose to contact me. I might use one for the bulk of my outgoing calls, but for incoming calls, it wouldn't be right.
An ideal compromise, in my view, would be for the operators to provide two numbers on every phone, a caller pays and a mobile party pays (with the latter being treated as ordinary airtime, or unmetered according to a fixed monthly charge), but alas I don't think the operators would ever do something that could potentially undermine their interconnect revenues like that.
Neither solution is perfect. The US seems better at the moment because of the emphasis on unmetered usage. At least unmetered incoming calls are an option here. But the downside is the lack of a practical PAYG system.
The other way of looking at it is that the mobile user has made a technology choice. They shouldn't expect other people to pay for their technology choice. A system where each person pays to connect to the network and decides how they want to pay for that is inherently fairer, even if it makes it harder for people to choose to subsidize the systems of others.
(Remember too that in the majority of cases, most US users have a fixed bill because of the high number of bundled minutes coupled with the huge unmetered portions of their bills. It's not the case that we get billed for the incoming call in the majority of cases. If it's made at peak time, from a different network, then yeah, we'll use bundled minutes, but most of us end up with large amounts of bundled minutes free at the end of the month despite this. And you never have to accept an incoming call.)
and. as for pricing. yes, vodafone have a 1c/sec flat rate on calls. but. i pay $79/month and at the end of the my account has a automatic refund (of sorts) applied, so anything up to $500 in calls/txt/etc is included in the $79.
That doesn't sound like a bad plan, that's unusually good outside of the US from what I've researched, though most of my research has been limited to the UK.
i DO use my mobile for most calls. i use my landline maybe once a week, because it has a better speakerphone if im using it for a long time.
If I were back in Britain, I couldn't substitute a cellphone for a landline because of the incoming calls issue. It's simply not fair to my family or friends to make them pay through the nose to contact me. I might use one for the bulk of my outgoing calls, but for incoming calls, it wouldn't be right.
An ideal compromise, in my view, would be for the operators to provide two numbers on every phone, a caller pays and a mobile party pays (with the latter being treated as ordinary airtime, or unmetered according to a fixed monthly charge), but alas I don't think the operators would ever do something that could potentially undermine their interconnect revenues like that.
Neither solution is perfect. The US seems better at the moment because of the emphasis on unmetered usage. At least unmetered incoming calls are an option here. But the downside is the lack of a practical PAYG system.
cozmot
Mar 21, 02:16 PM
The point is that MisterMe said nothing that your response would have fit. You can infer all you want, but it's very clear that MisterMe was talking about the market share myth, and was not inferring that Macs are immune to malware.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 01:03 PM
If he had one he might be a live hero.
Its actually easier to be the hero when the odds aren't so stacked against you. Its harder to be the hero when you know you will likely die. So in fact I'd say he was even more heroic for what he had done than if he had had a gun.
Its actually easier to be the hero when the odds aren't so stacked against you. Its harder to be the hero when you know you will likely die. So in fact I'd say he was even more heroic for what he had done than if he had had a gun.
Kashchei
Aug 31, 11:47 AM
Merom MacBook Pro + Conroe iMac + speedbumped Mac mini + iTunes movie downloads + widescreen video iPod
You took the words right out of my mouth!
You took the words right out of my mouth!
mlrproducts
Sep 13, 11:41 PM
I hope the iPhone can be use iChat and we can video chat with and Mac at any time.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
Not to be mean, I am being redundant, but the chances of that happening when/if this phone is released is about the same as a Powerbook G5 coming out in matching colors.
Mattsasa
Apr 25, 04:34 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have an ODD.
this is tight......but please.....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't have an ODD.
this is tight......but please.....PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't have an ODD.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:45 PM
It's no different than Walmart, Sears, PepBoys, etc choosing their suppliers from what becomes available and is proposed to them. Some of it is necessary and they look for it, like produce or clothes or spare parts, or when Apple courted some big software developers and seeded them with unreleased tools. But the majority is from suppliers courting the distributors.
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
Ah, but Apple won't let us sell it in our own store!
You may invent the next "green thing" and then what? Time to beat the path to the distributors, convince them and sign some thick contracts accepting every single condition they've put in place.
It's not your store. They set the terms and conditions. Want to sell it by yourself in your own store? Sure you can, but most people would actually rather shop at Walmart. ;)
Ah, but Apple won't let us sell it in our own store!
RalfTheDog
Mar 23, 02:05 AM
GeekBench 2 benchmarks http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/ of the new MBPs with Sandy Bridge would indicate otherwise. This review said: "....the fastest MacBook Pro is 80% faster than the fastest previous-generation MacBook Pro.". My guess is a similar situation might be true for the iMac and it will be faster ( otherwise, there's little point to a rev )
I think the point is, the new computer Apple builds today will not slow down the one you purchased yesterday. The older computer is just as good as it was the day you got it.
RE: all you guys wanting real Mac rumors. With the next round of desktop systems, Apple is moving away from the Mac and into the Granny Smith. The iGranny will have a Blu-ray drive and it can double as an ironing board. The iGranny will also augment the video and sound with smellovision thus allowing websites and movies to replicate smells. (This will work well for food adds, not so much for zombie movies.)
I think the point is, the new computer Apple builds today will not slow down the one you purchased yesterday. The older computer is just as good as it was the day you got it.
RE: all you guys wanting real Mac rumors. With the next round of desktop systems, Apple is moving away from the Mac and into the Granny Smith. The iGranny will have a Blu-ray drive and it can double as an ironing board. The iGranny will also augment the video and sound with smellovision thus allowing websites and movies to replicate smells. (This will work well for food adds, not so much for zombie movies.)
milo
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
In order to receive the movie from the movie store it would stream to the "box".Having a HD would allow you to save the movie.
AND!!
Later in your room you could stream it from the "Box" to your computer :-)
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't it just download straight to the computer in the first place? That's where it's stored, that's where it's streamed from. You just added an extra step and made it that much more complicated.
AND!!
Later in your room you could stream it from the "Box" to your computer :-)
That makes no sense. Why wouldn't it just download straight to the computer in the first place? That's where it's stored, that's where it's streamed from. You just added an extra step and made it that much more complicated.
ratspg
Nov 14, 11:25 AM
You are all very funny for the most part. I'm not even sure how many of you actually develop apps for the iPhone, but it seems like you would all fit quite well working for Apple's App Review team in prolonging the process and stifling developers. I think it's pretty hilarious how many of you just jump and support Apple. If Apple obeyed rules from day one, they would never have become the innovative company they are today. The point is, any developer creating an application for the iPhone should be encouraged and motivated to develop for a great and unique platform. The other side (Apple) is obviously being very difficult to work with and ambiguous with many rejections and comments. With a lack of communication, you'll get adversity from both sides. I just wish most of you would wake up, stop bowing to Apple and realize that they have more control over making the App Review process WORK for the long-term than the developers do. I hope they stick with thinking different and start to make great changes to the App Review process.
iGary
Sep 12, 03:29 PM
Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product
That was already a YEAR OLD.
That was already a YEAR OLD.
cdavis11
Mar 23, 04:31 PM
If you're sober enough to have presence of mind to check an app for a sobriety checkpoint, you're probably sober enough to drive.
paddy
Aug 31, 11:29 AM
Hope this has something to do with a mac mini update, I'm holding out for the next.
cube
Apr 22, 11:52 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
MattG
Aug 28, 01:32 PM
Wow, that Dell 2010...it's just like an iMac, just 3x the price and 3x as ugly. Eww.
unobtainium
Apr 30, 01:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
dernhelm
Sep 14, 06:53 AM
New and improved idiocy!
� built in SCSI zip DAT minidisc and floppy drive
� liquid cooled
<snip>
Someone has way too much time on their hands... ;)
� built in SCSI zip DAT minidisc and floppy drive
� liquid cooled
<snip>
Someone has way too much time on their hands... ;)