m2uk
Sep 1, 11:57 AM
Whatever, PLEASE PLEASE more than 2gb limit ! I am waiting for a new Imac (have my 20" intel Imac from my studio room presently in my office after selling my G5 and have been holding on for the post WWDC launch window... really don't want to wait until net year and the PowerMac replacements will be too noisy.
lizard79
Aug 29, 10:36 AM
Hope they bring back the $499 price point, Merom or not
I'm totally with you..
The minis are currently to expensive - imho..
I'm totally with you..
The minis are currently to expensive - imho..
chillywilly
Sep 6, 01:30 PM
As a current G4 mini owner, I like that they decided to get rid of the Core Solo. It didn't seem much of a bump from the G4 1.42 model.
As for prices, the high end mini with upgraded options seems very pricey. It's almost cheaper to go with the iMac.
I wouldn't mind getting a new mini, but don't really have the need for one now. Maybe if I give mine to my daughter eventually, that may be an option down the road.
But as with others, it would have been nice to see a price drop.
As for prices, the high end mini with upgraded options seems very pricey. It's almost cheaper to go with the iMac.
I wouldn't mind getting a new mini, but don't really have the need for one now. Maybe if I give mine to my daughter eventually, that may be an option down the road.
But as with others, it would have been nice to see a price drop.
czeluff
Jan 12, 12:25 PM
I think the "Air" more likely refers to over the air rentals.
Bingo! This guy nailed it. Apple maintains a professional naming scheme for all of their machines. "Macbook Air" is NOT one of them.
Based on the current specs listed, here's what consumers would choose between (and this is why those specs are wrong):
Macbook: 13.3", ~$1100, Optical Drive.
Macbook Air: 13.3, ~$1500, No Optical Drive.
Sounds like a pretty dumb decision to me. I'll take the cheaper one ANY DAY.
Bingo! This guy nailed it. Apple maintains a professional naming scheme for all of their machines. "Macbook Air" is NOT one of them.
Based on the current specs listed, here's what consumers would choose between (and this is why those specs are wrong):
Macbook: 13.3", ~$1100, Optical Drive.
Macbook Air: 13.3, ~$1500, No Optical Drive.
Sounds like a pretty dumb decision to me. I'll take the cheaper one ANY DAY.
caderousse
Apr 26, 02:37 PM
Wow some of you guys really ride Apple's jock huh? How the hell can you claim 'App Store' as non-generic?
MS and Amazon are clearly correct here. Apple should just pay their legal fees and move on.
MS and Amazon are clearly correct here. Apple should just pay their legal fees and move on.
arkmannj
Apr 12, 09:50 PM
I wonder if they'll update the whole studio suite
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
codymac
Apr 11, 01:20 PM
That said, VW/Audi`s DSG semi auto`s are excellent.
So are their manual gearboxes.
;)
So are their manual gearboxes.
;)
tablo13
Sep 27, 05:41 PM
My dermashot case came in on Friday.. been using it since.
My initial thoughts - this case looks cheap and has a loose feel.
My thoughts now - the case has a nice style and even though it is not as snug as it should be, it fits fine. It has not fallen off at all and has a real nice feel too. However, the included screen protector was junk. Had way too many bubbles. Even after applying many times, that didn't help. I now like the grip of the case. I also like how the case comes up around the menu button.
Overall, I'm very satisfied with it. For $20 with free shipping, it was a decent deal. The case also comes with a little stand that holds the iPod horizontally (not vertically at all), so you can watch movies and not have to hold it. It's a nice little added feature.
Hope this helps others who are on the fence.. ;)
Bill
Is the screen protector a fingerprint/oil magnet?
My initial thoughts - this case looks cheap and has a loose feel.
My thoughts now - the case has a nice style and even though it is not as snug as it should be, it fits fine. It has not fallen off at all and has a real nice feel too. However, the included screen protector was junk. Had way too many bubbles. Even after applying many times, that didn't help. I now like the grip of the case. I also like how the case comes up around the menu button.
Overall, I'm very satisfied with it. For $20 with free shipping, it was a decent deal. The case also comes with a little stand that holds the iPod horizontally (not vertically at all), so you can watch movies and not have to hold it. It's a nice little added feature.
Hope this helps others who are on the fence.. ;)
Bill
Is the screen protector a fingerprint/oil magnet?
johnnyham
Jun 24, 10:52 AM
As is the norm for most rumored Apple products... it's been done before to some extent. In this case, a company in Valencia, CA, humorously called Troll Touch (http://www.trolltouch.com) (wonder if they hang out on forums much?) performs touchscreen upgrades to virtually any Mac product. As I understand it, the majority of their customers are businesses (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/macworld-touchscreen-mac,news-417.html) that use touchscreen iMacs as point of sale machines, equipped with the [/url="http://www.xsilva.com"]Lightspeed POS[/url] software. And no, POS does not stand for what you call your '79 Ford Pinto.
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
MonkeyClaw
Oct 23, 08:56 AM
This news just in....
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
ROFL!!!!
I dunno, I really have a gut feeling that tomorrow will be the day, but in the end, my PowerBook G4 is still gettin the job done :D
"My infant son began to cry when I placed the MacBook Pro in my shopping cart this morning, this is a clear indication that the MBP could be updated as soon as this week. More news to follow..."
ROFL!!!!
I dunno, I really have a gut feeling that tomorrow will be the day, but in the end, my PowerBook G4 is still gettin the job done :D
cube
Mar 24, 02:02 PM
I wonder if support is really there or just the ability to identify the cards.
BriChi
Oct 23, 08:43 AM
Of course tomorrow, I just purchased the white Macbook 2.0 Tuesday. If they come out tomorrow looks like I am returning mine for the new c2d. I will pay the restocking fee if I have to
sochrisash
Jan 5, 04:22 PM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04078.jpg
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 02:09 PM
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
Eraserhead
Nov 28, 11:23 AM
I remember playing on an XBox soon after it came out, it had Halo and a Hard drive, which made it better hardware-wise than the PS2 and it had a really good exclusive game (though GTA which is on the PS2 is better). So I don't think the XBox was too bad really. I don't think comparisons can be made with the Zune this time.
macmax77
Nov 29, 05:18 PM
I know that it's not quite fair to compare the two right out of the launch (a baby product versus a mature one), but MS didn't help themselves by setting up this product to compete directly with the iPod. If they had tried to target a different market (maybe primarily video as opposed to music), they might have more success, and let the hype build from there. But the way they seem to be playing it now, they're going to just throw a lot of money into something that will be in Apple's shadow. It'll offer a compelling alternative to some, but will not necessarily convince too many to become switchers. :p
Sometimes new things are the Hip thing to buy, but to get a Zune you need 2 things:
1-Bad Taste
2-Bad Taste
Sometimes new things are the Hip thing to buy, but to get a Zune you need 2 things:
1-Bad Taste
2-Bad Taste
Funkymonk
Apr 2, 11:06 PM
loved the ad. one of apple's best yet and speaks the truth!
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
mc68k
Dec 29, 05:48 PM
I spent christmas day, snowbound, rerouting the wiring (and cleaning the "computer room" so everything at least looks much better. I actually got 4 4u cases so I have room to grow, they were $28 each plus $17? each for shipping. 4u is about the same size as a normal tower case so everything fits in nicely. I will post some pics soon.looking forward to the pics, sounds like an operation!
jgonzo
Jan 21, 02:58 PM
with GTO in garage
spyd4r
Oct 23, 09:19 PM
I have been patiently waiting for the new macbook pro just as long as the rest of you, but i have had it, they are like 1.5 - 2 months behind their competitors now.. I am just about ready to drop the money and upgrade my PC desktop instead...they betttter hurrry! ;)
adroit
Nov 15, 11:25 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.
For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.
I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.
archer75
Apr 19, 11:45 AM
It was rumored just prior to the macbook pro refresh that they might come with a small 16gb SSD drive just for the OS. Wouldn't surprise me to see that make it's way into an imac. Large SSD's are just too expensive and often times not big enough. And you only get a finite number of writes on them before they're garbage.
twoodcc
Dec 2, 04:59 AM
Well, I won't get back the #7 spot from you ;) unless these 12 cores Gulftown Mac pros come out at MWSF...
wait, by MWSF you mean CES?
wait, by MWSF you mean CES?
Digital Dude
Mar 24, 02:49 PM
[QUOTE=aiqw9182;12245523]You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now.../QUOTE]
So, without using the supplied windows CD/Driver I can simply plug n' play the 5870 into my 2009 MacPro and it work?! Sounds very tempting.
So, without using the supplied windows CD/Driver I can simply plug n' play the 5870 into my 2009 MacPro and it work?! Sounds very tempting.
No comments:
Post a Comment