Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 11:24 AM
What I gather would really make the iPhone something special:
...
5. Works as a front row remote.
That would require a built in IR as well as that standard BT. Of course, unless Apple let you run front row via the BT.
...
5. Works as a front row remote.
That would require a built in IR as well as that standard BT. Of course, unless Apple let you run front row via the BT.
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:33 PM
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
Depends on what threat you want to protect yourself from. On Tiger the trash can protects against acidental deletes and does a usfull job. Time Machine on one drive would act like a nicer, automated trash can and might even replace the trash can. In fact I don't se a need for the trash anymore.
If a user adds a second drive he still gets the effect of the automatic trash can but now can survie a disk smoking. Wat reains to be seen is how configurable this thing is. Can he backup to a server over the Internet AND to his external drive at the same time. What if you are using a RAID? can you back that up to a second RAID? Who backs up the backup server? What is to prevent a "backup cycle" so where one small change fills up every disk on the network? That would be if "A" backed or "B" and "B" backed up "A". Does the system detect longer cycles?? How?
Depends on what threat you want to protect yourself from. On Tiger the trash can protects against acidental deletes and does a usfull job. Time Machine on one drive would act like a nicer, automated trash can and might even replace the trash can. In fact I don't se a need for the trash anymore.
If a user adds a second drive he still gets the effect of the automatic trash can but now can survie a disk smoking. Wat reains to be seen is how configurable this thing is. Can he backup to a server over the Internet AND to his external drive at the same time. What if you are using a RAID? can you back that up to a second RAID? Who backs up the backup server? What is to prevent a "backup cycle" so where one small change fills up every disk on the network? That would be if "A" backed or "B" and "B" backed up "A". Does the system detect longer cycles?? How?
Huntn
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:14 PM
That's actually more than I expected.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
Yep, not bad considering it's $800 without contract.
FF_productions
Jul 15, 12:54 AM
Here's hoping you're right. I think including 512 MB of RAM standard would be a bit of a slap in the face if Apple is releasing these supposedly "advanced" machines. What kind of advanced PowerMac has only 512 MB of RAM standard? ;) :cool:
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
whooleytoo
Sep 13, 07:37 AM
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 04:06 PM
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
For the same reason that pretty much no-one else makes a laptop like what you described either. The only thing I've seen that even gets close to the sort of battery life you are talking about are some of the Japanese ultraportables that can get 6-11 hours of battery life, using 10-12" screens and very slow and power efficient ULV Core Solo or ULV Pentium M chips. These laptops also tend to cost in the $2000-3000 range.
I would venture to say that even if you slapped one of those ULV processors in a larger notebook with a larger battery, you still wouldn't be able to balance things out to get 24 hours of battery life.
And one has to wonder if people would put up with the performance hit.
OLED display technology at least probably isn't ready to be used for something like a laptop screen.
So, for the "love of reason and common sense", can we stop expecting Apple to create a product that isn't even technically feasible right now?
I think if you want 24 hours of battery life, you're probably better off carrying 6 or 7 spare batteries (and the $600-700 cost of doing so and added weight is still probably less than what it would take to get some laptop that actually had a reliable 24 hour battery life.)
-Zadillo
Cinch
For the same reason that pretty much no-one else makes a laptop like what you described either. The only thing I've seen that even gets close to the sort of battery life you are talking about are some of the Japanese ultraportables that can get 6-11 hours of battery life, using 10-12" screens and very slow and power efficient ULV Core Solo or ULV Pentium M chips. These laptops also tend to cost in the $2000-3000 range.
I would venture to say that even if you slapped one of those ULV processors in a larger notebook with a larger battery, you still wouldn't be able to balance things out to get 24 hours of battery life.
And one has to wonder if people would put up with the performance hit.
OLED display technology at least probably isn't ready to be used for something like a laptop screen.
So, for the "love of reason and common sense", can we stop expecting Apple to create a product that isn't even technically feasible right now?
I think if you want 24 hours of battery life, you're probably better off carrying 6 or 7 spare batteries (and the $600-700 cost of doing so and added weight is still probably less than what it would take to get some laptop that actually had a reliable 24 hour battery life.)
-Zadillo
Maccus Aurelius
Sep 19, 11:45 AM
You know, Sony and Nintendo are just *SO* behind the curve with next gen gaming systems.
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get what I want, because I'm childish like that.
Although Sony's PS3 is an overpriced beast with BlueRay support, the nex Nintendo console (which can play old school games) seems promising. As for the Core 2 Duo, personally I don't really care one bit when it comes to a "consumer" grade laptop. Any 64-bit software will work on a 32-bit platform, so I'm fine. Leopard is backwards compatible, so great! If the Merom chips are more energy efficient, that seems promising, but my fridge and TV consume more power, so I don't care. Presently Dell does offer core 2 duo processing chips, but only in their $2,500-3,000 laptop systems. I'm still looking around for laptops that range around low-end MBP and MB prices that have C2D and I haven't found any yet. But since the XPS systems have Core 2 Duo installed, I'm sure the first macs notebooks to see them will be the pros first. But seeing as how my macbooks is presently in the shop for random shut down syndrome, I'm more concerned with a working machine than a machine with a slight efficiency advantage.
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get what I want, because I'm childish like that.
Although Sony's PS3 is an overpriced beast with BlueRay support, the nex Nintendo console (which can play old school games) seems promising. As for the Core 2 Duo, personally I don't really care one bit when it comes to a "consumer" grade laptop. Any 64-bit software will work on a 32-bit platform, so I'm fine. Leopard is backwards compatible, so great! If the Merom chips are more energy efficient, that seems promising, but my fridge and TV consume more power, so I don't care. Presently Dell does offer core 2 duo processing chips, but only in their $2,500-3,000 laptop systems. I'm still looking around for laptops that range around low-end MBP and MB prices that have C2D and I haven't found any yet. But since the XPS systems have Core 2 Duo installed, I'm sure the first macs notebooks to see them will be the pros first. But seeing as how my macbooks is presently in the shop for random shut down syndrome, I'm more concerned with a working machine than a machine with a slight efficiency advantage.
michaelrjohnson
Jul 27, 10:13 AM
wasn't this announced last friday? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721145043.shtml)
Yeah, but it was a line on a report before, and this time there was an "event" of sorts.
Yeah, but it was a line on a report before, and this time there was an "event" of sorts.
skunk
Mar 22, 07:22 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:How many of those in the first list have the capability of fielding an airforce? I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Nicaragua and Uzbekistan would be less than useful contributors.
berkleeboy210
Jul 28, 07:43 AM
Looking forward to WWDC! Unfortunately I'll be returning home on a plane while the Keynote is going on.
At MacWorld when Steve announced the MacBook Pro's I literally fell off a chair. Here's hoping that the Plane won't do the same thing if the Pilot's are Mac Nuts! :D
At MacWorld when Steve announced the MacBook Pro's I literally fell off a chair. Here's hoping that the Plane won't do the same thing if the Pilot's are Mac Nuts! :D
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
Mike84
Apr 25, 03:47 PM
Being sued and breaking the law are two different things. I can sue you for killing the tree between our yards. You didnt break any law, but I can still sue.
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Then it would be a frivolous lawsuit and it would be dismissed.
So, there really isn't a point buddy. :D
I kinda see where he is a bit right. If I turn off or say no to allowing the apps to use my location this might suggest to the user that it is not tracking and storing this data. I do not think that it is a stretch to make that connection.
I do agree this is way out of hand though.
Then it would be a frivolous lawsuit and it would be dismissed.
So, there really isn't a point buddy. :D
britishempire
Aug 7, 03:31 PM
Looks very nice. Spaces will become a "how did we live without this?" feature as expose already has.
Does anyone know when we can expect a video of the WWDC to be uploaded??:confused:
Does anyone know when we can expect a video of the WWDC to be uploaded??:confused:
tekmoe
Sep 19, 08:00 AM
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
agreed, 100%.
agreed, 100%.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
theBB
Mar 31, 07:13 PM
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
Well, the rules for GPL say you need to release the source code along with the software and you actually have to offer them through the same channel, so that you cannot make it practically impossible for people to get to the source even if it is theoretically available. Of course, GPL is not the only "open source" license. This is Google's playground, so they get to define it any way they wish.
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 08:34 AM
Not bad at all.
osx11
Mar 22, 12:58 PM
.2 mm thinner?
let the war begin.
let the war begin.
ArchaicRevival
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Epic. Fail.
Willis
Jul 28, 06:11 AM
gnasher729, thanks for taking the time to explain that. I had to read it twice, but I get it.
So it seems that in many ways we're getting the best of the G5 and the best of Intel with the Core 2 Duo chips. As these kinds of things unfold, Apple's decision to switch to Intel chips makes more and more sense. They probably knew where Intel was going. Interesting.
*sigh* REMEMBER! Apple said they were changing in June 06 at the last WWDC. Even though Intel are just annoucing now, im sure if apple was waiting, they might of 'bumped' it up a notch.
Ah well, at least we have some good products now. i cant imagine still looking at a powerbook and ibook still for sale.
So it seems that in many ways we're getting the best of the G5 and the best of Intel with the Core 2 Duo chips. As these kinds of things unfold, Apple's decision to switch to Intel chips makes more and more sense. They probably knew where Intel was going. Interesting.
*sigh* REMEMBER! Apple said they were changing in June 06 at the last WWDC. Even though Intel are just annoucing now, im sure if apple was waiting, they might of 'bumped' it up a notch.
Ah well, at least we have some good products now. i cant imagine still looking at a powerbook and ibook still for sale.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 06:03 PM
Maybe not the worst, but definitely the most useless.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
Spotlight does a so much better job.
Agreed. I keep my dock pretty sparse so if the app ain't there it's only a few keystrokes away.
The new Launcher is just one of those eye-candy apps. It'll be the first thing I delete.
WhySoSerious
Mar 22, 03:47 PM
"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !
i could laugh at the same thing concerning the ipad 1 vs ipad 2.
the ipad 2 really isn't much thinner or lighter than the first version.
Multimedia
Aug 21, 01:25 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p
Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.
But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p