toddybody
Mar 22, 03:51 PM
THIS, is the apple i miss :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEbPm8mATQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEbPm8mATQ&feature=related
mohaukachi
Sep 14, 01:29 AM
so who else thinks this looks just like the chocolate?
http://www.dagadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/lg_kg800.jpg
http://www.dagadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/lg_kg800.jpg
aurichie
Mar 29, 11:49 AM
When Windows starts to come close to SL in terms of ease of use and functionality let me know ;)
Windows is as easy to use as SL. I'd say in terms of functionality Windows beats SL hands down. But most Apple fans idea of functionality in Windows is complexity and they prefer the dumbed down Mac operating system.
When I start using Mac OS X 2 years ago, it took me two solid months to get used to its ways. I can tell you, when I started out, I would not have described Apple's operating system as easy to use. Now I'm competent using two operating systems, and can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both. Neither are very difficult to use if you apply yourself to learning, but you have to put in the time to take full advantage of either one of them.
Windows is as easy to use as SL. I'd say in terms of functionality Windows beats SL hands down. But most Apple fans idea of functionality in Windows is complexity and they prefer the dumbed down Mac operating system.
When I start using Mac OS X 2 years ago, it took me two solid months to get used to its ways. I can tell you, when I started out, I would not have described Apple's operating system as easy to use. Now I'm competent using two operating systems, and can appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both. Neither are very difficult to use if you apply yourself to learning, but you have to put in the time to take full advantage of either one of them.
MBPro825
Apr 10, 01:20 PM
Obviously McAfee has a vested interest is spewing "fear FUD" such as this. :rolleyes:
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
Popeye206
Apr 20, 01:55 PM
I fall into the "who cares" category.
If someone wants to waste their time figuring out where I've been... have a ball! I might be concerned if I was a drug lord, or cereal murderer (Die! Captain Crunch, die!). :) But since I'm just a software guy... again, who cares?
P.S. Snap, Crackle and Pop... you're next!
If someone wants to waste their time figuring out where I've been... have a ball! I might be concerned if I was a drug lord, or cereal murderer (Die! Captain Crunch, die!). :) But since I'm just a software guy... again, who cares?
P.S. Snap, Crackle and Pop... you're next!
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Harry Potter And The Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry Potter And The Deathly
+deathly+hallows+part+1+
Title: Harry Potter and the
Part 1 begins as Harry,
Harry Potter and The Deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
harry potter and the deathly
harry potter and the deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
.JPG "“Harry Potter and the Deathly")
“Harry Potter and the Deathly
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 5, 04:47 PM
I think this is totally feasible, but one question that many of you haven't addressed is: "Do you see this interaction and interface happening for the Windows users?"
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
I agree completely. iTunes was ported to Windows to sell more iPods, and music. The iMovie Store (or whatever) will be included for Windows to sell more video iPods and Airport AV (or whatever it will be called). The living room box will have to play nice with PCs in order for this whole thing to have the same impact as the iTMS/iPod.
It may just be time for Front Row to be ported to Windows too. Wouldn't that just chafe Gates' butt?
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
I agree completely. iTunes was ported to Windows to sell more iPods, and music. The iMovie Store (or whatever) will be included for Windows to sell more video iPods and Airport AV (or whatever it will be called). The living room box will have to play nice with PCs in order for this whole thing to have the same impact as the iTMS/iPod.
It may just be time for Front Row to be ported to Windows too. Wouldn't that just chafe Gates' butt?
whooleytoo
Mar 30, 12:45 PM
If Apple wins this argument, obviously that would prevent MS from calling theirs the "App Store" - but can they still use the phrase descriptively? I.e. "Welcome to App Market, Microsoft's app store."
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
vand0576
Sep 5, 11:32 AM
No one else has yet mentioned that the Airport Extreme is currently reflecting a 1-3 week shipping period (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=B842E400&nplm=M8799LL%2FA), while the Airport Express (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=7D88DA55&nplm=M9470LL%2FA) still says it will ship within 24 hours on the Apple Store Online. It would seem that it is the Extreme and not the Express to be getting the update.
codymac
Apr 11, 09:18 PM
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
daneoni
Sep 14, 11:48 AM
But since everyone's discussing MBP's, I guess it fits.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
No, the chip is soldiered onto the board and not socketed like desktops
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
No, the chip is soldiered onto the board and not socketed like desktops
cube
Apr 22, 11:48 AM
And I'm honestly kind of impressed that the MacBook Pro still doesn't give you an option to buy one without a DVD drive; I have a 2011 MBP and I swear, it doesn't get any use whatsoever. Apple's obsession with using every square millimeter of space on a portable device apparently ends when it comes to optical disk drives on MBPs.
It doesn't happen because what they should really be putting is Blu-Ray.
It doesn't happen because what they should really be putting is Blu-Ray.
Psychic Shopper
Sep 4, 07:20 PM
"This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder."
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Pravius
Apr 22, 07:52 AM
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
Hard Drives are mechanical, they die. I would personally use this as a backup and to listen when I am at work. I can have access to my entire music library from multiple devices. I have a 16gb iPhone, my entire library will not come close to fitting on that.
Hard Drives are mechanical, they die. I would personally use this as a backup and to listen when I am at work. I can have access to my entire music library from multiple devices. I have a 16gb iPhone, my entire library will not come close to fitting on that.
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...
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 11:27 AM
I don't see the connection between overclocking and childishness. Overclocking is done by enthusiasts and power users of all ages. There is nothing wrong with it, and the practice should not be stigmatized.
There is no connection , just ignorant people who can't handle the fact that someone just saved alot of money buying a lower end cpu and overclocking it to a point where it stomps their $999 cpu. I would never spend over $350 for a CPU or Video Card.
There is no connection , just ignorant people who can't handle the fact that someone just saved alot of money buying a lower end cpu and overclocking it to a point where it stomps their $999 cpu. I would never spend over $350 for a CPU or Video Card.
medster17
Apr 28, 03:30 PM
Congratulations to apple, eventually this day had to come. Microsoft has been slacking off in the past few years and this will make them see the larger picture.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 05:09 PM
And that's one of the reasons I don't like all in ones, I dont like throwing away display no matter what the size. My last CRT lasted me about 6 years and I had an old apple 14" monitor that was still working after 10 years! Now that's getting value out of your components! :D
Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.
Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about �15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.
I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.
coder12
May 3, 11:08 AM
What do people prefer? I've heard quite bad things about the Magic Mouse, the majority of people saying they find it uncomfortable etc?
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
As I already have a good Logitech wireless mouse, would it be a better combination to use that plus the Trackpad?
I'm personally a big fan of the mighty mouse. I have smaller hands, and also use bettertouchtool. I find certain maneuvers difficult with it still (like 3 finger swipes), but obviously I opt'd in for that ;)
They're both very nice pieces of hardware, with separate purposes. I'll be honest and say that if I had the choice between the two, I'd buy the trackpad:
a. Gestures on Lion feel better with it imho.
b. I use the keyboard for almost everything, and moving over to a mouse which I'll need to move farther away from my keyboard is irritating. The trackpad stays in one spot.
c. You already have a nice mouse ;)
mazola
Sep 5, 03:15 PM
Steve's debuting a new series of "I'm a Mac" TV ads
:P
:P
BornAgainMac
Sep 19, 06:51 PM
I was disappointed that only Disney signed up so I bought a ton of movies in the last week. Hopefully that got the attention of the other studios and sign up too. I really like the idea of downloading musics and I think HD movies will be a killer next year. Hopefully hard drives will continue to go down in price.
Most of the movies I purchased I didn't plan to purchase in DVD format. I looked at the trailer and liked it so I bought it. It is the convenience that sold me. This is revenue the studio would never receive before now.
Most of the movies I purchased I didn't plan to purchase in DVD format. I looked at the trailer and liked it so I bought it. It is the convenience that sold me. This is revenue the studio would never receive before now.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 06:20 PM
Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.
Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve
In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.
Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.
Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...
They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.
There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.
tubbymac
Apr 11, 02:23 AM
Does this open the door to streaming video too or will it only work for audio?
MattInOz
Sep 5, 05:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
Given all the magic that makes Front Row possible is quartz and quartz is just an Apple specific layer to the OpenGL language, which can run purely on the the GPU, then really Airport A/V is just an upgrade that includes a GPU.
The ARM cpu of the current Airport could do what is does now, plus the minor extra work of handling the remote control.
That gives you the same expirence with the Airport connecting to either a Mac or Windows on the network.
No comments:
Post a Comment