amac4me
Aug 28, 12:16 PM
I think Apple will try to get these out prior to the Paris expo. Why give up sales to announce the product at a later date?
asdf542
Apr 22, 11:52 AM
It doesn't happen because what they should really be putting is Blu-Ray.
If Blu-Ray was going to happen it would've been in the refresh of 2011 MBP's. I can't imagine the optical drive being around much longer in anything other than the Mac Pro.
If Blu-Ray was going to happen it would've been in the refresh of 2011 MBP's. I can't imagine the optical drive being around much longer in anything other than the Mac Pro.
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 02:57 PM
Updated my 5G iPod to 1.2, loaded Quadrophenia, and yes, there is FINALLY gapless. :D
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
mazola
Aug 31, 03:19 PM
Here comes Leather iPod Sock -- version 2.0!
matttrick
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
gah i love how mention of the merom rumor has to be thrown into every other rumor :(
jamesryanbell
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
Do people really game on an Air?
Yes, they really do.
Yes, they really do.
afd
Apr 11, 03:10 AM
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
DRewPi
Sep 4, 03:57 AM
How do you feel if the MBP gets a nice upgrade that eventually the MB is going to go down on price ???? The first MB should be selling for 999$ ?? NO?
See yall .... :D
See yall .... :D
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
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.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
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.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
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.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
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.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
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.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
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.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
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.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
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.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
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.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
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.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
jonnysods
Apr 25, 01:14 PM
Sign me up!
I love the current design, but I'm always excited about the future.
I love the current design, but I'm always excited about the future.
DotComName
Apr 19, 09:22 AM
obviously they will "respond strongly"....that's what people with expensive lawyers do... doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the stronger case. Most people sue Apple (sometimes rightfully so), but in this case, it is undeniable that Samsung has hijacked Apple's intellectual property, MOST NOTABLY I THINK with the UI skin on their Android phones... Takes a triple take to realize that it's not stock iOS.
MovieCutter
Sep 5, 04:33 PM
I'm going to venture a guess and say we'll see something named the iPod Showtime or Showtime as a product name.
Durendal
Oct 27, 11:46 AM
ridiculous
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
Let a bunch of Greenpeace guys go too far at a tradeshow (see above) and get away with it. Read up on the above comments. They violated their contracts and screwed with other vendors' booths. Perhaps you should learn how to think rationally, then learn how to spell.
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
Let a bunch of Greenpeace guys go too far at a tradeshow (see above) and get away with it. Read up on the above comments. They violated their contracts and screwed with other vendors' booths. Perhaps you should learn how to think rationally, then learn how to spell.
iMacZealot
Sep 18, 01:34 AM
You're right it's just like the ages old Mac verses PC debate can't really compare them.
It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.
It's not even the technology's price that's the difference, that's decided by another company. it's the technologies that are hard to compare.
It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.
It's not even the technology's price that's the difference, that's decided by another company. it's the technologies that are hard to compare.
miamialley
Mar 30, 11:40 AM
IMO it's like Publix or Kroger trying to claim the rights to "grocery store."
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
Or maybe more like if McDonald's tried to claim the rights to "burgers."
10layers
Sep 4, 07:49 PM
This is exactly what we have been predicting in the article Apple movie downloads soon, what about the TV?. (http://10layers.com/2006/09/apple-movie-downloads-soon-what-about-the-tv/)
Apple has been driving iPod sales with music sales. We think that they will be driving some new device sales with movie sales. In addition, we do not think that movie downloads will go mainstream until it is convenient to view them on the best device: your home entertainment system. This is what Apple has been redying before launching movie downloads. Apple want the picture to be complete.
Apple has been driving iPod sales with music sales. We think that they will be driving some new device sales with movie sales. In addition, we do not think that movie downloads will go mainstream until it is convenient to view them on the best device: your home entertainment system. This is what Apple has been redying before launching movie downloads. Apple want the picture to be complete.
koruki
Apr 19, 03:47 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
Yeah cause a contract breach takes just as long to prove a IP suite. They'd get slapped so fast they wont know what hit them, not to mention other companies would see it as samsung being cowboys for mixing their two business up.
Gamdoan
Sep 14, 09:32 AM
Photokina is a photo convention. Not a computer convention.
Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, wasn't the 17" MacBook Pro released in conjunction with NAB? NAB is certainly not a computer event either, but there are people of the press with notepads and cameras at these events. That's why Apple uses these events to their advantage.
Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, wasn't the 17" MacBook Pro released in conjunction with NAB? NAB is certainly not a computer event either, but there are people of the press with notepads and cameras at these events. That's why Apple uses these events to their advantage.
Paulhammer
Sep 14, 08:44 AM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 09:07 AM
Yea, I know what you mean. Apple needs to get on the ball with that already. They have been shipping dual core machines for a while yet OS X cant truly take advantage of it. Since intel will be using more cores as time goes by it only makes sense for OS X and it's apps to be able to harness the full power of all the cores/processors. I really really hope thats what they have planned for Leopard. Maybe its one of the " Super Secret Features" ??? :rolleyes:
I think that Apple is still working on a gamer machine. I can only assume tat it will be Mac Pro based or a new enclosure. They currently do not support SLI (need support), are using buffered memory (slow), and needs to be user upgradable. I think it is coming but not untl some time next year.
Open GL suporting multiple cores and multiple GPU power agregation is likely to be the ticket so insane performance that blows the rest. But I think it will wait until Leopard to be released. I am sure the next revision 10.4.8 will take us part of the way, but multi cpu, multi-package, multicores are comming. In Jan we should see 2 Quad cores in the Mac Pro and an even better dual Quad in summer. Only Leopard will be able to unleash the power.
I think that Apple is still working on a gamer machine. I can only assume tat it will be Mac Pro based or a new enclosure. They currently do not support SLI (need support), are using buffered memory (slow), and needs to be user upgradable. I think it is coming but not untl some time next year.
Open GL suporting multiple cores and multiple GPU power agregation is likely to be the ticket so insane performance that blows the rest. But I think it will wait until Leopard to be released. I am sure the next revision 10.4.8 will take us part of the way, but multi cpu, multi-package, multicores are comming. In Jan we should see 2 Quad cores in the Mac Pro and an even better dual Quad in summer. Only Leopard will be able to unleash the power.
aly
Sep 14, 09:04 AM
I doubt we'll see some headless tower (apart from the macpro) i honestly don't think its in apple's interest to openup a new price point. Mac mini provides a nice entry for windows users, people wanting something next to their tv, or have the monitor etc already. MacBook provides mobile low end. iMac allows a bit more power and features over the mini for home users wanting a bit more and companies and people who dont need the power of the Mac Pro. MacBook Pro is high end portable allowing for graphics, photography, design, etc, and to some extent gaming on the go. The Mac Pro is the beast, a workstation more than a desktop and therefore is over specced for the normal user. But why put in a new model in between a imac and a mac pro when having the gap forces people looking for more than an imac to go for the mac pro and increase revenue. By creating an 'in between' model it takes sales away from the popular imac and the expensive mac pro, would probably have to have lower margins to get people to buy it and would just float about in the middle. Maybe die a fate similar to the cube? I don't see it being a smart move.
cult hero
May 3, 03:10 PM
I haven't used the magic trackpad, but at least 50% of my time with my MBP is spent at a desk with an external keyboard, mouse and monitor.
I like to use the trackpad on the laptop itself IN ADDITION to the mouse. For general pointing and moving about (and a bit of gaming) the mouse can't be beat. However, I like having gestures. It's the most natural way for me to use Expos� at this point.
I like to use the trackpad on the laptop itself IN ADDITION to the mouse. For general pointing and moving about (and a bit of gaming) the mouse can't be beat. However, I like having gestures. It's the most natural way for me to use Expos� at this point.
MacAddict1978
Apr 30, 04:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
blahblah100
Mar 30, 01:25 PM
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
Edit: Actually, I just looked at some really old KB articles from Microsoft, MS-Dos 'programs' were also referred to as "applications."
As others have pointed out (repeatedly), Windows does actually refer to what you call 'Programs' as applications. For example, right click on a 'program' shortcut. On the short-cut, what does it say for the "target type?"
Since you seem to have trouble reading so-far, I'll give you a hint: it says "Application."
It's been this way since <at least> Windows XP.
Edit: Actually, I just looked at some really old KB articles from Microsoft, MS-Dos 'programs' were also referred to as "applications."