Eidorian
Jul 20, 01:22 PM
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
MacFan782040
Sep 5, 02:58 PM
iTunes Movie Store should be rental only.
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
nefan65
Apr 25, 12:57 PM
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
dr Dunkel
May 3, 04:44 PM
They haven't fallen behind; they're just not interested in serving the market you're part of. Apple are interested in selling elegant, integrated, simple computers to ordinary people, and ordinary people play games on consoles.
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
paradox00
Apr 14, 04:53 PM
Very true, but in the end, USB2 won out.
Cere, on page one, you DID state that TB would (a) be mac only and (b) die and you've been backtracking terribly ever since.
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Cere, on page one, you DID state that TB would (a) be mac only and (b) die and you've been backtracking terribly ever since.
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
MurphyM
Apr 30, 02:36 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Chicken or the egg e-coli. Something has to come first. When considering the purchase of a machine you'll have around for 3-4 years why wouldn't you be eager to have the forward-looking port instead of not having it?
I taught a 5-day class to Microsoft employees when Windows 98 was close to release, for people who'd be supporting it. It was the first time many people had heard of USB, and there were almost no devices to show people. In fact the only one I remember was the Cherry keyboard.
Anyway, I can see why people who've been able to delay their purchase time-frame long enough are "excited" - because by waiting a few weeks or months they'll be more current and better equipped for years.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Chicken or the egg e-coli. Something has to come first. When considering the purchase of a machine you'll have around for 3-4 years why wouldn't you be eager to have the forward-looking port instead of not having it?
I taught a 5-day class to Microsoft employees when Windows 98 was close to release, for people who'd be supporting it. It was the first time many people had heard of USB, and there were almost no devices to show people. In fact the only one I remember was the Cherry keyboard.
Anyway, I can see why people who've been able to delay their purchase time-frame long enough are "excited" - because by waiting a few weeks or months they'll be more current and better equipped for years.
FriarNurgle
Mar 29, 02:11 PM
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria� for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
That's kind of where I was going... but businesses would switch from Blackberrys to Windows Phones. I wouldn't put it past MS to offer some sort of crazy business discount to get companies to change.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria� for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
That's kind of where I was going... but businesses would switch from Blackberrys to Windows Phones. I wouldn't put it past MS to offer some sort of crazy business discount to get companies to change.
Peace
Sep 5, 05:58 PM
Wow, you really don't get it.
Watching on the tv is exactly what this is about. The whole point is that you don't need to have a *computer* or even a *hard drive* next to the TV since you can just stream the video from a computer ANYWHERE in your house.
Seriously, did you even look at the picture you responded to?
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
Watching on the tv is exactly what this is about. The whole point is that you don't need to have a *computer* or even a *hard drive* next to the TV since you can just stream the video from a computer ANYWHERE in your house.
Seriously, did you even look at the picture you responded to?
Yes I did milo.And it's a fine rendition :)
Only thing is one still has to connect some kind of A/V cables to the TV..
Think about that concept.
MattInOz
May 3, 06:19 PM
My iMacs have 2 Firewire ports (a 27" and a 24") which I use for TM and a SD clone external. The new iMacs only have one FW port - with 4 USB connections. Seems like a slower way to have to back up, and I see no externals out there that run Thunderbolt.
Am I missing something? :confused:
You can daisy chain the Firewire drives.
I'm assuming you don't run both backups at the same time as both would be competing for the internal drive and would make the whole process much slower what with all the seeking well and internal drive speed being the limiting factor. So if only one device is moving data at a time then the two devices in Daisy Chain shouldn't be noticeably slower than on dedicated ports.
Am I missing something? :confused:
You can daisy chain the Firewire drives.
I'm assuming you don't run both backups at the same time as both would be competing for the internal drive and would make the whole process much slower what with all the seeking well and internal drive speed being the limiting factor. So if only one device is moving data at a time then the two devices in Daisy Chain shouldn't be noticeably slower than on dedicated ports.
pink-pony115
Sep 17, 12:52 AM
When will the iPhone rumors end? Can't you people see it won't happen?
macenforcer
Oct 12, 03:24 PM
Ah, classic manipulation of an idea. At no point in that post did I say "helping people" is a bad thing, or that it should never be done. Quite the contrary... I actually said:
So please, don't cherrypick. Education is the only answer to this problem, nobody disputes that. But to say there is absolutely no correlation between the death and suffering going on in Africa, and a large portion of that society which is beyond help and beyond the limitations of education would be naive.
There are times in human history when, despite all our better efforts, nature is going to run its course, and those groups who have not adapted their lifestlye and way of thinking are left behind. I'm certainly not saying don't try, nor am I saying that saving even a single life wouldn't be worth the effort. I'm merely saying that Africa's problems are deeper than education. There's a culture there that has been in place a lot longer than even our own system of education and medicine has existed. To think that we can change that by giving them some condoms, explaining how they work and why it's important, is foolish. I'm saying that Africa will sort out it's own problems in time, when those individuals who recognize the problem for themselves get a voice. We can help, and every little bit helps, but it's not ours to fix. This is FAR FAR more complex and rooted than a kid who hurts his knee on a skateboard.
AMEN brotha!
So please, don't cherrypick. Education is the only answer to this problem, nobody disputes that. But to say there is absolutely no correlation between the death and suffering going on in Africa, and a large portion of that society which is beyond help and beyond the limitations of education would be naive.
There are times in human history when, despite all our better efforts, nature is going to run its course, and those groups who have not adapted their lifestlye and way of thinking are left behind. I'm certainly not saying don't try, nor am I saying that saving even a single life wouldn't be worth the effort. I'm merely saying that Africa's problems are deeper than education. There's a culture there that has been in place a lot longer than even our own system of education and medicine has existed. To think that we can change that by giving them some condoms, explaining how they work and why it's important, is foolish. I'm saying that Africa will sort out it's own problems in time, when those individuals who recognize the problem for themselves get a voice. We can help, and every little bit helps, but it's not ours to fix. This is FAR FAR more complex and rooted than a kid who hurts his knee on a skateboard.
AMEN brotha!
balamw
Sep 21, 11:40 PM
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.
Where do you get 6-8x 720p has only 3x the resolution and 1080i is just slightly higher than that. Only 1080p is 6-8x the raw resolution, but compression tends to work better if you give it more data to work with so birtates do not scale linearly with the number of pixels, and it can often be closer to a square root, so 720p might only be 2x as long as current movies with 1080p 3-4x.
B
Where do you get 6-8x 720p has only 3x the resolution and 1080i is just slightly higher than that. Only 1080p is 6-8x the raw resolution, but compression tends to work better if you give it more data to work with so birtates do not scale linearly with the number of pixels, and it can often be closer to a square root, so 720p might only be 2x as long as current movies with 1080p 3-4x.
B
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 01:57 PM
*Shrug* It is probably a feature enabled on the majority of GSM carriers for statistical purposes. Again, I don't see the problem. If this information is used to improve my network coverage, why should I care? If I'm not part of a secret terrorist cell, I don't see how my life is being negatively impacted by this information especially if it does not have any identifiable information attached to it.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
Totally agree, if Apple turns every iPhone into a listening device, what's the problem if it ends up improving noise cancelling? And by a strange coincidence, I'm not part of a terrorist cell either.
Has there been any actual information about this information being used for improving network coverage? As far I as I know, Apple has still not said one word about this. And why is it not encrypted?
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
Totally agree, if Apple turns every iPhone into a listening device, what's the problem if it ends up improving noise cancelling? And by a strange coincidence, I'm not part of a terrorist cell either.
Has there been any actual information about this information being used for improving network coverage? As far I as I know, Apple has still not said one word about this. And why is it not encrypted?
rdowns
Apr 25, 08:57 AM
I was going to ask what the D stands for but I guess that's kind of obvious.
Spiritgreywolf
Apr 30, 04:38 PM
Okay, all the new processor stuff - awesome. Wonderful that it will have some super-fast ports.
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
When I got my 27" 2.7GHz Core i7 iMac, I tried boosting some throughput with iSCSI and fatter network packets between my older MBP and my Drobo-FS NAS.
Alas, that was not the case. I was restricted to the network framesize of 1500 because someone at Apple decided to cheap-out and go chintzy on the network chips.
Are they going to do the same thing on this round? Gee - one extra dollar might have made a big difference. As it stands, only my OLDER MBP and an ASUS P6T Mobo-based PC I built can handle bigger frames. :mad:
So tell me Steve - gonna do that again? Cheese-out on something you think *I* don't need? Personally I would e-Bay my 27" iMac and get a new one - but if the Broadcom chipset is chintzed again, a new iMac will never be in my future again...
macboy62
Sep 14, 06:57 AM
Okay, check out this phone and then tell me what you would like to see on your iPhone.
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/index.html
http://www.vodafone.jp/mb/en/product/3G/905sh/images/sub_image02.jpg
cmaier
Nov 13, 03:59 PM
I don't know about you, but I have done it many, many times, and I have never encountered a client who doesn't want to tweak and add and tweak and sometimes reject, then conditionally approve, their way to deployment.
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
hondaboy945
Aug 23, 10:23 PM
So dose this mean ms can sue apple if they decided to use wifi in ipods ????
I skimmed to this post, so sorry if it has been answered. Does MS own every Wi-Fi license. Just wanted too know.
I skimmed to this post, so sorry if it has been answered. Does MS own every Wi-Fi license. Just wanted too know.
cardude280
May 3, 11:33 AM
As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
but i thought half the point of TB was that you would only need one output from the computer, and since we don't have any TB displays (or anything for that matter) how do we know that the ports are limited to one display?
rdrr
Sep 15, 05:52 PM
I thought 10 Mega Pixels were possible with some tech that is suppose to arrive at the end of this year for phones.
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone were you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone were you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
Mal67
May 1, 12:34 AM
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
ivybridge imac 2012 for usb3?
+ when will we see the sandybridge mac minis?
ivybridge imac 2012 for usb3?
+ when will we see the sandybridge mac minis?
j-traxx
Apr 4, 12:07 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
the thieves were armed. thats good for them. i love it when people get a reaction WAY ABOVE what they expected when they left for thieving this morning. no sympathy for criminals.
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
the thieves were armed. thats good for them. i love it when people get a reaction WAY ABOVE what they expected when they left for thieving this morning. no sympathy for criminals.
Multimedia
Sep 14, 10:53 AM
Most likely. I'm not a betting person, but Apple usually rolls out new pro machines during these types of events and what better way to show off the MBPs running C2D than a demonstration of Aperture 2.0. :)Yeah I agree. This is likely the time and place for the MBP C2D - Finally.
macfan881
Sep 19, 01:56 PM
the only new movies i saw are Stick it and Preorders now For Dead mans Chest
0 comments:
Post a Comment