rockthecasbah
Jan 11, 08:40 PM
I don't buy it from just the name alone. I really hope Apple releases a subcompact MacBook Pro, external optical drive and all that good stuff. We don't need this new MacBook regular nonsense.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 08:13 AM
I agree. I would be surprised if Apple even offers it before next year. Blu-Ray DVRs are still about $1k and the blank media is also very expensive. Apple will have enough challenges keeping the Intel Quad under $4k without including Blu-Ray yet. But by this time next year, I would expect it to be a BTO option for the desktops at least.
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!
archer75
Apr 19, 11:33 AM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
skiltrip
Oct 2, 08:41 PM
I also bought mine from ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I ordered one of these from Ashopone last week (grey color). Does the gel case slide in and out of a pocket easily? The thing I hate about the silicone cases I have is that they are really sticking going in and out of pockets.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I ordered one of these from Ashopone last week (grey color). Does the gel case slide in and out of a pocket easily? The thing I hate about the silicone cases I have is that they are really sticking going in and out of pockets.
Multimedia
Nov 15, 05:55 PM
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
Maldini
Jan 12, 05:09 PM
+100
I'm sure it is something very mundane, like streaming movie rentals via iTunes.
I dont think they have all these huge banners for iTunes streaming, they probably mean there is something coming in 2008
I'm sure it is something very mundane, like streaming movie rentals via iTunes.
I dont think they have all these huge banners for iTunes streaming, they probably mean there is something coming in 2008
islanders
Jan 3, 07:55 AM
I agree about the word processor. I never could understand why Apple didn�t offer a few more features to make AppleWorks useful.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
andrew.gw
Apr 3, 03:39 AM
False. DP 2 can install directly to a blank drive/partitlon.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
Machead III
Sep 7, 06:34 AM
I know they don't blow up 747s anymore, and the days of John Woo film sets with million dollar explosives going off in every scene being over (aside from the odd Speilberg or Scott production), but admittedly there are plenty of expensive CGI films out there.
It seems you can save a lot of money by avoiding a lot of pure CGI; films like Star Wars and King Kong that contain vast portions of CGI developed from scratch seem to cost a lot more than films like Sin City and A Scanner Darkly that are essentially live-action films that have been doctored in post-production.
Renaissance is the exception because although it's entirely from-scratch-CGI, the scenes are no where near as complex and detailed as King Kong etc.
It seems you can save a lot of money by avoiding a lot of pure CGI; films like Star Wars and King Kong that contain vast portions of CGI developed from scratch seem to cost a lot more than films like Sin City and A Scanner Darkly that are essentially live-action films that have been doctored in post-production.
Renaissance is the exception because although it's entirely from-scratch-CGI, the scenes are no where near as complex and detailed as King Kong etc.
Gem�tlichkeit
Nov 24, 10:07 AM
uh...
that seems awful clunky as a container for a pair of sunglasses...
I do believe that's a gun case.
that seems awful clunky as a container for a pair of sunglasses...
I do believe that's a gun case.
dguisinger
Nov 28, 02:24 PM
It may not be true that they broke even, it's just something I thought I heard on a tv interview...
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
jagolden
Sep 7, 09:25 AM
A good idea, just poorly executed.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Yes, everything should be given to everyone, no one has to work for it.
A good idea?! What, work hard so you can give it away to someone else who's to lazy to work hard? Wont give anything us shortterm for longterm returns?
It makes no sense, period.
Why do you think the roles of Welfare in the US are so huge? It's overflowing with the lazy ones who wont get off thier a###s therefore taking away from the the people who truly need that welfare.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Yes, everything should be given to everyone, no one has to work for it.
A good idea?! What, work hard so you can give it away to someone else who's to lazy to work hard? Wont give anything us shortterm for longterm returns?
It makes no sense, period.
Why do you think the roles of Welfare in the US are so huge? It's overflowing with the lazy ones who wont get off thier a###s therefore taking away from the the people who truly need that welfare.
brad.c
Nov 28, 10:00 AM
Deep pockets or not, MS will have a struggle to find a niche. But at least they were smart enough to put in a radio.
skunk
Mar 20, 01:07 PM
I am very uncomfortable with the intervention in Libya. When you look at what is happening in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. You have to ask the question why Libya.The repression in Libya is on a different scale entirely to those other countries. None of those others is using tanks and aircraft to attack their dissidents.
So, apparently you're old...
Yet you come across with all the maturity of an 11 year old.
:confused:Indeed, puzzling: I was putting it down to callowness, too.
So, apparently you're old...
Yet you come across with all the maturity of an 11 year old.
:confused:Indeed, puzzling: I was putting it down to callowness, too.
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
SuperCachetes
Mar 18, 09:10 AM
In Libya, there's a massive peace movement against Gaddafi. You don't have that in country "X".
I think that really depends on what country "X" is, and on your perspective.
Is this the peace movement you mean?
http://media.cleveland.com/world_impact/photo/libya-rebels-ras-lanuf-030511jpg-47d8f70bb90b2259.jpg
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did...
Yet.
Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
Are missiles okay? How about bombs?
I think that really depends on what country "X" is, and on your perspective.
Is this the peace movement you mean?
http://media.cleveland.com/world_impact/photo/libya-rebels-ras-lanuf-030511jpg-47d8f70bb90b2259.jpg
this isn't forcefully spreading democracy like Bush did...
Yet.
Plus we aren't sending in a ground force to occupy the country if we did that I would have a problem with it.
Are missiles okay? How about bombs?
darknyt
Oct 12, 02:41 PM
Does anybody have any idea when Switcheasy will release something for the 4G?
They sent me an email reply to that very question that basically said screw off, we don't announce, we release.
They sent me an email reply to that very question that basically said screw off, we don't announce, we release.
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 03:24 PM
I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.
bokdol
Mar 24, 01:14 PM
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
OnceUGoMac
Nov 28, 09:56 AM
I was in FYE last night, and out of curiosity, asked the sales assistant how they were selling. They hadn't sold a single one. I guess it is too early to tell. However, we joked that to many people iPod is the name for all mp3 players, kind of like Kleenex for tissues, and Coke for soda.
Snowcat001
Jun 22, 12:13 PM
Then what was the point in the iPad?
have fun carrying an iMac :)
have fun carrying an iMac :)
MaenXe
Apr 26, 01:33 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
App is shorthand for Application, it's been in use for almost 20 years: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=app
App Store is a descriptive term for a shop selling a specific product. Such as Pet Store rather than Domestic Animal Store, or PC Store rather than Computer Store. By Apple's reasoning, the first person who used the term Pet Store should have Trademarked it and cornered the market. But since several companies started selling Pets at their Pet Stores without a Trademark, then the term was considered common place.
Personally, I think that the terms iPhone App Store, iTunes App Store, and Mac App Store should be trademarked and would be respected by the general industry.
Also, in Amazon's defense, there usage is Amazon "AppStore", not Amazon "App Store". So, splitting hairs, it's not the same.
M@
App is shorthand for Application, it's been in use for almost 20 years: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=app
App Store is a descriptive term for a shop selling a specific product. Such as Pet Store rather than Domestic Animal Store, or PC Store rather than Computer Store. By Apple's reasoning, the first person who used the term Pet Store should have Trademarked it and cornered the market. But since several companies started selling Pets at their Pet Stores without a Trademark, then the term was considered common place.
Personally, I think that the terms iPhone App Store, iTunes App Store, and Mac App Store should be trademarked and would be respected by the general industry.
Also, in Amazon's defense, there usage is Amazon "AppStore", not Amazon "App Store". So, splitting hairs, it's not the same.
M@
mrblack927
Apr 4, 05:40 PM
I don't know about this whole fullscreen mode thing. The more "features" they add, the less I like it. I like to see pertinent information at a glance. I don't understand why the menu bar has to be hidden. I lose the ability to see my battery %, wifi status, even the time of day at a glance. All for what? to save 20 pixels of space? I'm sorry but if you need screen space that badly you should invest in a bigger monitor. Even the iOS devices leave the information bar at the top... :o
Just my thoughts...
Just my thoughts...
swajames
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Of course they do - and many people will have even more. Apple offers smaller capacity devices for those with smaller libraries. For those of us with large libraries or store our music in uncompressed or at higher bit rates, the Classic is the only game in town. Why wouldn't you want to be able to take your entire library with you wherever you go? The Classic isn't a dinosaur - it's the best at what it does and it remains the choice of the connoisseur.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Of course they do - and many people will have even more. Apple offers smaller capacity devices for those with smaller libraries. For those of us with large libraries or store our music in uncompressed or at higher bit rates, the Classic is the only game in town. Why wouldn't you want to be able to take your entire library with you wherever you go? The Classic isn't a dinosaur - it's the best at what it does and it remains the choice of the connoisseur.
No comments:
Post a Comment