Equitek
Apr 22, 11:53 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
I'd have pulled the trigger on a 13" MPB if screen resolution was higher... But now I'll likely be happier with an 11" Air with ThunderBolt. Maybe I can get a 500GB SSD in there by the time it's released, then I'll have all I want (for now).
addicted44
Apr 22, 10:16 AM
The idea must delight at&t. Data charges will be very high
What about those many places where 3G is not available
....weak reception areas
....no reception areas
....airplanes, subways,...
Use the album that you downloaded, and synced onto your phone/iPod.
There is NO indication that Apple will not be letting you still download your music. This is a service in ADDITION to what you can already do.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
What about those many places where 3G is not available
....weak reception areas
....no reception areas
....airplanes, subways,...
Use the album that you downloaded, and synced onto your phone/iPod.
There is NO indication that Apple will not be letting you still download your music. This is a service in ADDITION to what you can already do.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
striker33
May 3, 03:33 PM
But hooking it up to 2 apple cinemas (24") is ok, right?
Yes. As they both function as MDP ports as well as Thunderbolt ports.
Yes. As they both function as MDP ports as well as Thunderbolt ports.
dejo
Mar 30, 11:32 AM
Honestly the term "app" didn't even exist 5 years ago.
Yes, it did.
Yes, it did.
macnews
Sep 27, 02:25 AM
Did anyone notice Disney introduced their own cell phone service? Normally not much but given Steve's close ties to Disney perhaps they have shared some info? www.disneymobile.com
Some very interesting features, makes me think of things that might be available with a mac phone service.
Some very interesting features, makes me think of things that might be available with a mac phone service.
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:54 PM
Call me spoiled by all things thin, I think the iMac is looking pretty chunky these days. Not sure why it isn't significantly thinner than it is. The next time they do update the form factor it should essentially look like a giant first gen iPad.
Id totally want a super thin iMac as well...but the thing already has heat issues at its current thickness. They'd need to integrate some pretty revolutionary CPU/GPU (low TDP) and give it some new cooling technologies (IDK if the new nVIDIA/AMD vapor cooling chambers would assist)...this isnt going to happen. It's already a Panini press...making it thinner would just exacerbate things.
Now, I think the 27inch display has few excuses for it's thickness...Samsung/LG are making some damn thin monitors. I just wish Dell would hop on that bandwagon. 1'' thick Ultrasharp 27inch 1440p monitor FTW!
Id totally want a super thin iMac as well...but the thing already has heat issues at its current thickness. They'd need to integrate some pretty revolutionary CPU/GPU (low TDP) and give it some new cooling technologies (IDK if the new nVIDIA/AMD vapor cooling chambers would assist)...this isnt going to happen. It's already a Panini press...making it thinner would just exacerbate things.
Now, I think the 27inch display has few excuses for it's thickness...Samsung/LG are making some damn thin monitors. I just wish Dell would hop on that bandwagon. 1'' thick Ultrasharp 27inch 1440p monitor FTW!
OddyOh
Mar 29, 01:34 PM
That tears it...I'm dropping out of school to become a full-time analyst...easiest job in the world. :D
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 01:06 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
cozmot
Mar 18, 12:00 AM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 05:29 PM
If you need 16 cores, shouldn't you get a rack with four Xserves (once the new Xserves with Intel-processors become available)?
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.
Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.
(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.
lmalave
Sep 26, 10:31 PM
While on the topic of the iPhone, I am curious about video playback. It may be a lot to ask, but the Chocolate has it and Apple is competing with that and other media phones.
I don't think it's too much to ask for: I think it's a given. I fully expect the phone will record and play back video.
Video takes up a lot of space, though, so another question that hasn't been brought up in this thread is: will the iPhone have expandable memory? Or will it be more like the nano where it will have 4 GB of storage, but no expandability? I'm hoping for expandability, but I doubt it will happen. Apple wants to customers to buy iPods every couple of years, and more storage space is an added incentive to upgrade.
What I predict is that the iPhone will consistently have only as much storage as the mid-range nano (so that would be currently 4 GB). That way it can consistently be marketed as an upsell from the nano. So it will retail w/o contract for $500 instead of $200, but I'll bet with a 2 year contract it's $300 from Cingular, and possibly as low as $200 (same as nano!) if you get it from a 3rd party cell phone seller.
I also predict that down the road (but not at launch), Apple will also offer a larger hard-drive based iPhone. as with the iPod/iPod nano tradeoff, it will not only be more expensive but will be much bulkier. Again, adding the phone features might make it retail for $600, but with 2-year contract that might bring it close to the iPod price. So in about a couple of years I predict Apple will have a 40 GB iPhone in addition to a (by then) 8GB iPhone nano.
I think 5 years from now apple will be selling more iPhones than stand-alone iPods, for the simple reason that the cell phone market is vastly larger than the mp3 player market. I think if Apple can make a phone that the average consumer will be comfortable using as their primary music player, the sky's the limit. My Sony Ericsson phone is a good first attempt at music phones, but I predict in 5 years Apple will dominate the music/video phone market, and people think if the Sony Ericsson the way people now think of early pre-Apple mp3 players...
I don't think it's too much to ask for: I think it's a given. I fully expect the phone will record and play back video.
Video takes up a lot of space, though, so another question that hasn't been brought up in this thread is: will the iPhone have expandable memory? Or will it be more like the nano where it will have 4 GB of storage, but no expandability? I'm hoping for expandability, but I doubt it will happen. Apple wants to customers to buy iPods every couple of years, and more storage space is an added incentive to upgrade.
What I predict is that the iPhone will consistently have only as much storage as the mid-range nano (so that would be currently 4 GB). That way it can consistently be marketed as an upsell from the nano. So it will retail w/o contract for $500 instead of $200, but I'll bet with a 2 year contract it's $300 from Cingular, and possibly as low as $200 (same as nano!) if you get it from a 3rd party cell phone seller.
I also predict that down the road (but not at launch), Apple will also offer a larger hard-drive based iPhone. as with the iPod/iPod nano tradeoff, it will not only be more expensive but will be much bulkier. Again, adding the phone features might make it retail for $600, but with 2-year contract that might bring it close to the iPod price. So in about a couple of years I predict Apple will have a 40 GB iPhone in addition to a (by then) 8GB iPhone nano.
I think 5 years from now apple will be selling more iPhones than stand-alone iPods, for the simple reason that the cell phone market is vastly larger than the mp3 player market. I think if Apple can make a phone that the average consumer will be comfortable using as their primary music player, the sky's the limit. My Sony Ericsson phone is a good first attempt at music phones, but I predict in 5 years Apple will dominate the music/video phone market, and people think if the Sony Ericsson the way people now think of early pre-Apple mp3 players...
Analog Kid
Apr 14, 01:43 PM
Thunderbolt will never replace USB because they serve different functions. You will never see low-bandwidth devices such as keyboard/mice/USB stick using thunderbolt because it doesn't make sense.
[...]
Also I don't know if anyone mentioned it but one of the reasons Firewire never took off was because of royalty fees that need to be paid for implementing it. Thunderbolt has no royalties on it and this should help drive adoption.
From the looks of it Thunderbolt will be able to replace eSata, Firewire, and maybe Expresscards.
This almost identically mirrors USB/FW. The reason FW sputtered (and it did start to take off for a brief while) was USB2. USB2 isn't at all designed to handle the applications that FW does, but it's not a coincidence that USB2 was designed for raw bandwidth just greater than FW and that it was marketed as such, ignoring usability issues and true throughput.
USB2 won because it was almost good enough, vendors didn't want a second connector and all the power supply that went with FireWire, and the masses were never educated on what the limitations of USB were.
The original USB was just fine for mice and keyboards. USB2 was meant to undermine FireWire, and USB3 was meant to kill it. USB3 is an attempt to be one bus for all purposes, just like Thunderbolt is. You don't need two universal serial busses, and the buying public will stick with the logo they're most comfortable with.
[...]
Also I don't know if anyone mentioned it but one of the reasons Firewire never took off was because of royalty fees that need to be paid for implementing it. Thunderbolt has no royalties on it and this should help drive adoption.
From the looks of it Thunderbolt will be able to replace eSata, Firewire, and maybe Expresscards.
This almost identically mirrors USB/FW. The reason FW sputtered (and it did start to take off for a brief while) was USB2. USB2 isn't at all designed to handle the applications that FW does, but it's not a coincidence that USB2 was designed for raw bandwidth just greater than FW and that it was marketed as such, ignoring usability issues and true throughput.
USB2 won because it was almost good enough, vendors didn't want a second connector and all the power supply that went with FireWire, and the masses were never educated on what the limitations of USB were.
The original USB was just fine for mice and keyboards. USB2 was meant to undermine FireWire, and USB3 was meant to kill it. USB3 is an attempt to be one bus for all purposes, just like Thunderbolt is. You don't need two universal serial busses, and the buying public will stick with the logo they're most comfortable with.
Eidorian
Apr 14, 01:10 PM
The real question that I haven't seen anyone ask, is will this be Intel only or will other chipsets/manufacturers support it as well.It appears to be Intel only for now and it is a rather large controller compared to USB 3.0 ones.
Intel gave many other vendors a field day for profits by not supporting USB 3.0 on their PCH. Though this did drive boards costs up and certain vendors preferred to wait for Intel to simply include support. To be honest, it only appears to be Apple.
Intel gave many other vendors a field day for profits by not supporting USB 3.0 on their PCH. Though this did drive boards costs up and certain vendors preferred to wait for Intel to simply include support. To be honest, it only appears to be Apple.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 05:12 PM
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.Agreed. But I do love the new Shuffle and will probably buy one when they go refurb for $49 - assuming refurb means with a new battery.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.Agreed. But I do love the new Shuffle and will probably buy one when they go refurb for $49 - assuming refurb means with a new battery.
jrober
Apr 20, 01:42 PM
From what I'm reading only GSM devices do this - so if you have the WiFi it is probably not doing it.
My iPad2 is a 3G one so should track wherever.
My iPad2 is a 3G one so should track wherever.
charlituna
Apr 20, 12:15 PM
WOW this is a major privacy breach.
How so. The phone is recording where it goes. There is no proof that it is sending that information to anyone.
And how likely is it that you are going to be careless with your iphone and/or the computer you sync it to. Particularly without a passcode lock on your iphone to protect your personal data.
Apple has provided the means to lock your phone, to auto wipe it if someone can't guess your pass code in several times and even to turn off location services and refuse app by app to allow them to use your location. Plus you can encrypt the back ups to your computer.
Unless you can prove they are transmitting that data to another party without your permission what wrong is Apple doing, what are they breaching.
How so. The phone is recording where it goes. There is no proof that it is sending that information to anyone.
And how likely is it that you are going to be careless with your iphone and/or the computer you sync it to. Particularly without a passcode lock on your iphone to protect your personal data.
Apple has provided the means to lock your phone, to auto wipe it if someone can't guess your pass code in several times and even to turn off location services and refuse app by app to allow them to use your location. Plus you can encrypt the back ups to your computer.
Unless you can prove they are transmitting that data to another party without your permission what wrong is Apple doing, what are they breaching.
vincenz
Apr 25, 01:50 PM
"Next year" as in October 2011 or October 2012?
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:00 PM
Oh gosh, let's have a black liquid metal .65inch thick, standard ssd, and boosted dpi displays. Hoo yah
homsar
May 3, 10:21 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
ETA: Of course, having an external display connected directly and using the other ThunderBolt port for non-display ThunderBolt devices makes much sense, especially seeing as ThunderBolt devices can't be daisy-chained after a display. So I'm not saying the two ports don't make sense.
ETA: Of course, having an external display connected directly and using the other ThunderBolt port for non-display ThunderBolt devices makes much sense, especially seeing as ThunderBolt devices can't be daisy-chained after a display. So I'm not saying the two ports don't make sense.
fblack
Sep 11, 07:34 AM
OK, Who knows where to buy a MXM GPU?
If it's not PCI Extreme, then it's not upgradeable.
Yes, but I can dream cant I ? :D
If it's not PCI Extreme, then it's not upgradeable.
Yes, but I can dream cant I ? :D
macnerd93
Mar 29, 01:10 PM
what the heck LOL, this is a joke right? I have NEVER seen a single new windows phone being used in public nor do I see that many Android devices in the UK. mostly I see
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Windows Mobile is doomed for failure, how many times has it been revamped and rebranded over the years? like 3 or 4 times if I remember
1. BlackBerries
2. iPhones
never seen a new windows phone LOL, most people who are happy with iPhones etc, will stick with them and won't bother going for anything else.
Windows Mobile is doomed for failure, how many times has it been revamped and rebranded over the years? like 3 or 4 times if I remember
gugy
Sep 5, 12:35 PM
by the invitation I would predict (or maybe wishful thinking) :D :
Itunes Movie Store
New Airport xpress with video capabilities.
new Front Row with DVR capability (that would be really nice)
device to connect cable TV to the Mac (ala Elgato)
Maybe new IPOD video widescreen.
Itunes Movie Store
New Airport xpress with video capabilities.
new Front Row with DVR capability (that would be really nice)
device to connect cable TV to the Mac (ala Elgato)
Maybe new IPOD video widescreen.
spine
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
Is this really a page 1 item?
The real news would be a release date, or an upcoming event.
Still, I want one!
The real news would be a release date, or an upcoming event.
Still, I want one!
yojitani
Sep 13, 12:32 AM
This is probably old news by now, but the new ipods/nanos don't qualify for the $179 return apple is giving students when the buy an ipod with a computer... bummer.