toddybody
Mar 24, 01:44 PM
You mean we may finally be able to buy a current gen video card at a comparable price to their windows counterparts?! Am I dreaming? I must be dreaming.. right?
Would be nice:) IDK, the more I think about owning a Pro...Id be better off making a monster hackintosh on 1155 mATX platform (i7 2600k), HD 6970, SSD...the works. In an all aluminum Lian Li case. Now thats my kind of Pro;)
Would be nice:) IDK, the more I think about owning a Pro...Id be better off making a monster hackintosh on 1155 mATX platform (i7 2600k), HD 6970, SSD...the works. In an all aluminum Lian Li case. Now thats my kind of Pro;)
poppe
Sep 1, 12:46 PM
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
If the Mac Mini and the MB would have stayed under 500 and 1000 repsectively then I would have said you are so wrong, but because they didn't I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with one just above 1999.
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
If the Mac Mini and the MB would have stayed under 500 and 1000 repsectively then I would have said you are so wrong, but because they didn't I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with one just above 1999.
mrjain
Jan 12, 12:47 AM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
I'm crying right now, that was funny as hell.
mrj
- - -
http://celestri.org
AidenShaw
Nov 15, 11:59 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
Speczorz
Sep 29, 02:08 AM
Still satisfied with my dermashot. It really hasn't collected much dust. If your on the wall still about a silicon case, check it out.
Bill
Bill
speakerwizard
Nov 15, 08:11 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
PBF
Apr 2, 01:39 PM
Is anyone able to video chat with other Yahoo users via iChat?
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
brepublican
Sep 6, 08:58 PM
Yeah it'll really be interesting to see what the res of the movies'll be. And SJ is only like, the biggest shareholder in Disney, so no, I did not expect them to be FULLY on board :rolleyes:
stompy
Nov 27, 02:11 PM
I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.
LOL, right you are. Anything from Digitimes should automatically go to page 2.
LOL, right you are. Anything from Digitimes should automatically go to page 2.
archer75
Apr 20, 08:00 AM
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
A 6800m would be a downgrade. Keep in mind the current imac with the 5750 is actually a 5850m. 6850m is a downgrade from a 5850m, though only slightly. There are only two cards they could use that are upgrades over the current one and that's the 6950m and the 6970m.
I would also hope for the 3.4ghz i7-2600 sandy bridge processor.
A 6800m would be a downgrade. Keep in mind the current imac with the 5750 is actually a 5850m. 6850m is a downgrade from a 5850m, though only slightly. There are only two cards they could use that are upgrades over the current one and that's the 6950m and the 6970m.
I would also hope for the 3.4ghz i7-2600 sandy bridge processor.
peterjhill
Sep 7, 11:48 AM
Quality is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important to me, than price.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
Why buy an HD DVD player when you can download the movies at 720P... That would be good enough for me... Of course it depends on how much compression they use to make the file size smaller.. Also, would I be able to stop and resume downloading of the files?
We will find out I guess.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
Why buy an HD DVD player when you can download the movies at 720P... That would be good enough for me... Of course it depends on how much compression they use to make the file size smaller.. Also, would I be able to stop and resume downloading of the files?
We will find out I guess.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 02:23 AM
Here is your quote SeaFox.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
SciFrog
Nov 8, 07:04 PM
bigadv are not available on windows but many are running virtual machines...
Kaibelf
Apr 21, 11:41 AM
What about Apple? Why don't they go after them for tracking every little thing you do with their services. If you want to talk about a company that violates & then documents our privacy go after Apple.
Don't be a fool.
You sign up for that when you agree to their TOS and buy their products. I don't recall a single person signing off on having their wi-fi sniffed and recorded by Google's mapping cars. :eek:
Don't be a fool.
You sign up for that when you agree to their TOS and buy their products. I don't recall a single person signing off on having their wi-fi sniffed and recorded by Google's mapping cars. :eek:
Kiwi Jones
Mar 24, 03:21 PM
So, this doesn't mean it would be possible to upgrade a 2010 15" MBP's GPU from the INTEL HD graphics to anything different does it??
This INTEL HD sucks really bad...
This INTEL HD sucks really bad...
ppdix
Jan 31, 07:52 PM
:apple: user since 1987... Can't tell? :rolleyes:
robbieduncan
Apr 10, 02:21 PM
I've only owned cars with a stick shift. It's sad to see that more and more models are now available in automatic only.
The only automatic I've ever owned was a car that was only ever made in auto form: a Jaguar XK8. Fortunately in the UK most mainstream cars are still available in manual.
There is another disturbing trend though: many modern manual cars (VAG group cars I'm look at you) won't let you use all three pedals at once. This is terrible for the spirited driver as you cannot heal and toe down the box. Kills the slight enjoyment one might get from driving a bland hatchback like a Golf.
The only automatic I've ever owned was a car that was only ever made in auto form: a Jaguar XK8. Fortunately in the UK most mainstream cars are still available in manual.
There is another disturbing trend though: many modern manual cars (VAG group cars I'm look at you) won't let you use all three pedals at once. This is terrible for the spirited driver as you cannot heal and toe down the box. Kills the slight enjoyment one might get from driving a bland hatchback like a Golf.
Detlev
Aug 16, 05:51 PM
OMG this will be so totally awesome! Maybe they'll introduce it at the WWDC...
Oh wait, that already happened and this is recycled news. meh
Oh wait, that already happened and this is recycled news. meh
jellomizer
Oct 23, 11:29 AM
i'd like to see what's inside the new MBP's, though i already bought my MBP a couple weeks ago with no regrets.. i'd still like to see what those who are waiting will get for their hard earned patience
Well we get the feeling of getting the best system for a while. If you got the old MBP while I am sure you will be happy with it for a long time. It is just nice to have a system where they don't introduce a new one for about 6 months.
But for myself who is waiting it is more about waiting for a Generation 2 which I promiced myself, when the MBP first came out. I would have origionally bought a MBP if a few months ago they just increased the speed to 2.33 ghz. I was just waiting for one more processor upgrade. But now with all the rumors I just can't get myself to get one until it has a Core 2 Dou or better in it.
Well we get the feeling of getting the best system for a while. If you got the old MBP while I am sure you will be happy with it for a long time. It is just nice to have a system where they don't introduce a new one for about 6 months.
But for myself who is waiting it is more about waiting for a Generation 2 which I promiced myself, when the MBP first came out. I would have origionally bought a MBP if a few months ago they just increased the speed to 2.33 ghz. I was just waiting for one more processor upgrade. But now with all the rumors I just can't get myself to get one until it has a Core 2 Dou or better in it.
vincenz
Apr 12, 10:27 PM
That price tag doesn't seem so ridiculous.
twoodcc
Dec 19, 01:11 AM
i may add some more over the break
nice. i doubt i'll add anymore over the break. i'm about at my limit i think
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
nice. i doubt i'll add anymore over the break. i'm about at my limit i think
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
nagromme
Jul 18, 02:08 AM
people wont like spending a lot of time downloading a file only for it to become completely useless a while later.
I disagree: people already spend time/gas/money DRIVING to a video store to rent something that become worse than useless: you have to drive again to return it :) Or, with Netflix you just have to mail it, but the wait is days--much longer than a download.
I disagree: people already spend time/gas/money DRIVING to a video store to rent something that become worse than useless: you have to drive again to return it :) Or, with Netflix you just have to mail it, but the wait is days--much longer than a download.
tirk
Mar 22, 05:11 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Why don't you go and buy a Zune. You would simultaneously improve the average IQ of both Zune and iPod users! :p
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Why don't you go and buy a Zune. You would simultaneously improve the average IQ of both Zune and iPod users! :p
AidenShaw
Sep 6, 09:05 PM
Yeah it'll really be interesting to see what the res of the movies'll be. And SJ is only like, the biggest shareholder in Disney, so no, I did not expect them to be FULLY on board :rolleyes:
Note that Jobs has only about one out of 18 of Disney's shares, and as a board member he's legally bound to do the best thing for the other "17" owners.
Jobs could be roasted for cutting a deal that's bad for Disney. Can you say "fiduciary responsibilities" and "conflict of interest" in the same sentence?
Note that Jobs has only about one out of 18 of Disney's shares, and as a board member he's legally bound to do the best thing for the other "17" owners.
Jobs could be roasted for cutting a deal that's bad for Disney. Can you say "fiduciary responsibilities" and "conflict of interest" in the same sentence?
No comments:
Post a Comment