Multimedia
Jul 23, 03:14 PM
Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).
I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.
Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.
January - March 2007
..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.
I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.
When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.
Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.
January - March 2007
..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.
I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.
When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
gekko513
Jul 15, 12:27 PM
Also, 1GB of RAM, who are they kidding? More like Mac Amateur
Many prefer to buy their own RAM because it's usually cheaper. There would be more people crying if Apple bundled 2GB of expensive RAM. They could offer a RAM downgrade of course, but then why not just give the price of the downgraded version, which leaves us at square one again.
Many prefer to buy their own RAM because it's usually cheaper. There would be more people crying if Apple bundled 2GB of expensive RAM. They could offer a RAM downgrade of course, but then why not just give the price of the downgraded version, which leaves us at square one again.
HyperZboy
Apr 7, 11:36 PM
This notion that Best Buy is the only one hoarding stock is typical of the stereotypical Apple fan. And once again, I've never bought Apple or Mac products at Best Buy because the staff are not knowledgeable in most cases, the same way I never bought a Mac at Circuit City for the short period they carried Macs.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Actually there is Core i7 2657M at 1.6Ghz 2 Cores with HT (4 threads) with turbo up to 2.4Ghz. TDP 17Watt. Looks better chip for top model 13" MacBook Air. Don't you think so? :)
Raid
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
I really have nothing to add to this thread, the whole thing was silly from the get go and is just a fantastic example of how American politics is more show than substance. (and a over-the-top- soap opera at that!)
But I saw this today and thought I would share:
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-facebook-fails-doubting-thomas1.jpg
You may now continue distract yourselves from real issues.
But I saw this today and thought I would share:
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-facebook-fails-doubting-thomas1.jpg
You may now continue distract yourselves from real issues.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 25, 01:45 PM
Pathetic.
ECUpirate44
Apr 11, 06:39 PM
Apple is already starting to fall behind in the cell phone market, the iphone 4 has the best gui, but not the best specs...waiting till Christmas will only push them farther behind
What are you limited doing because of the current specs of the iPhone 4?
What are you limited doing because of the current specs of the iPhone 4?
TallGuy1970
Mar 31, 04:20 PM
Maybe, just maybe, Steve jobs knows a bit about computing. You may not like his business model, but the man isn't stupid.
Bleubird2
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
Barabas
Jul 20, 09:21 AM
Why don't they just call it: Big Mac.
MacSawdust
Aug 26, 10:40 AM
This nows explains why mine is not valid.
jonharris200
Aug 5, 04:55 PM
Can someone confirm my calculations?
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
No, it's 6pm UK time according to the countdown clock on the macrumors homepage.
4God
Jul 14, 03:56 PM
This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Any bets on which year it will be?
Bill the TaxMan
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Raid
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
I really have nothing to add to this thread, the whole thing was silly from the get go and is just a fantastic example of how American politics is more show than substance. (and a over-the-top- soap opera at that!)
But I saw this today and thought I would share:
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-facebook-fails-doubting-thomas1.jpg
You may now continue distract yourselves from real issues.
But I saw this today and thought I would share:
http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-facebook-fails-doubting-thomas1.jpg
You may now continue distract yourselves from real issues.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:24 PM
Emphasis on the important bit for those who didn't bother to actually read the article. If you want to wait a bit, you can get the code and do whatever you want. Well that's my reading of it anyway, but please, don't let get in the way of giving the new enemy number one a good kicking.
If early access to the code is so unimportant then why the big fuss over cutting corners with Honeycomb to get it on the Xoom? Why not delay the Xoom or put Gingerbread on it and update it later?
Pretending that getting a jump on the market by weeks isn't enough to make or break you in the Android market isn't going to work. Having early access only doesn't matter if the features in the update are irrelevant (which they are for the feature phone makers who pretty much ignore any software updates anyway) or they're the life blood of the device (usually the flagship device of the month).
If early access to the code is so unimportant then why the big fuss over cutting corners with Honeycomb to get it on the Xoom? Why not delay the Xoom or put Gingerbread on it and update it later?
Pretending that getting a jump on the market by weeks isn't enough to make or break you in the Android market isn't going to work. Having early access only doesn't matter if the features in the update are irrelevant (which they are for the feature phone makers who pretty much ignore any software updates anyway) or they're the life blood of the device (usually the flagship device of the month).
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 18, 11:10 PM
Surprise?
News Flash: Apple to update chips in incredibly expensive pro laptop line no more than 3 months after competitors!
They better be updated by the 26th. Not only is any later date even more ridiculously late, but I'm starting to get kernal panics on my old computer. -_-
News Flash: Apple to update chips in incredibly expensive pro laptop line no more than 3 months after competitors!
They better be updated by the 26th. Not only is any later date even more ridiculously late, but I'm starting to get kernal panics on my old computer. -_-
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 04:06 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 12, 05:38 PM
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
Bleubird2
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
Do you have a kid or someone using your phone while you're asleep?
The-Pro
Apr 6, 11:57 AM
well the CPU in the 13" macbook air has a 1066 Mhz frontside bus, only the 11" has a 800 Mhz FSB, so that quote thing was wrong :D
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 13, 09:01 AM
Great news. I can't afford nor do I need that much power, but great to see it can be done.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
macaddiict
Apr 25, 01:37 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
voyagerd
Jul 27, 03:52 PM
Woot! I'm going to buy and ATI Radeon X850XT!
No comments:
Post a Comment