bep207
Aug 3, 10:45 AM
do you think the macbook pro could get easy to switch hard drives like the macbook has? what are the odds of fitting two hard drives in say a 17" model and allowing people to carry multiple hard drives that can be easily switched via a port. like a bigger expresscard port but for hdd
TedSlawski
Aug 7, 06:02 PM
Just ordered my Mac Pro!! :D
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
I got the base model, really don't find that graphic cards make much difference to me, RAM is usually less than half of what Apple wants in the aftermarket, putting my lightscribe in the other optical bay, Hard drives are usually close to free with my Staples office rewards, so I'll pick up the pieces to deck it out while I wait 3 weeks to get mine. Plus the place I bought it from gave me a $1200 trade in on my moderately upgraded original 2gig G5. I envy the 3gig processor though but that was financially just out of reach.
Quad 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 250GB HD + 500 GB HD, X1900 XT 512MB, Bluetooth+Airport, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1 Superdrive (holding out for BluRay) 30" ACD... $8264.23 :eek:
Estimated Ship Time... 3- 5 Weeks :eek: :eek:
This is gonna be good.
I got the base model, really don't find that graphic cards make much difference to me, RAM is usually less than half of what Apple wants in the aftermarket, putting my lightscribe in the other optical bay, Hard drives are usually close to free with my Staples office rewards, so I'll pick up the pieces to deck it out while I wait 3 weeks to get mine. Plus the place I bought it from gave me a $1200 trade in on my moderately upgraded original 2gig G5. I envy the 3gig processor though but that was financially just out of reach.
CellarDoor
Aug 4, 06:36 AM
This is great and bad at the same time for me. I'm so happy that they'll finally move to Merom. However, I've been holding off an MBP since mid-April. I was really hoping to get one after WWDC. If it's true that they may launch it in September, I may not be able to get it in time for school, and the ipod rebate may be over.
No kidding. I've been waiting for the merom mbp since they came out in Feb. Check out my signature. that computer is virtually dead. yeah thats another thing. If they dont update the MBP at WWDC, they may not be available until after the ipod student rebate deal is over. That would SUCK.
No kidding. I've been waiting for the merom mbp since they came out in Feb. Check out my signature. that computer is virtually dead. yeah thats another thing. If they dont update the MBP at WWDC, they may not be available until after the ipod student rebate deal is over. That would SUCK.
Westacular
Apr 23, 04:40 PM
Wish Apple did something towards resolution independence and not make images bigger and bigger. :confused:
The basic fact is vector graphics aren't always appropriate. A lot of things really can only be done, or can be done much better, with pixels. For any image with a lot of detail, it's easier -- both for the artists making them, and for the computers rendering them -- to store an extremely high resolution bitmapped image, and then downscale it as necessary, than it is to make and render a vectorized version that is "truly" resolution independent.
And now Apple's realized that by targeting "Retina Display" resolution levels, this is the last increase in image sizes they'll ever reasonably need: there's no point in making images bigger beyond this point (or displays with higher-than-retina-level DPI one would need to render them) because your eyes really won't be able to tell the difference.
The basic fact is vector graphics aren't always appropriate. A lot of things really can only be done, or can be done much better, with pixels. For any image with a lot of detail, it's easier -- both for the artists making them, and for the computers rendering them -- to store an extremely high resolution bitmapped image, and then downscale it as necessary, than it is to make and render a vectorized version that is "truly" resolution independent.
And now Apple's realized that by targeting "Retina Display" resolution levels, this is the last increase in image sizes they'll ever reasonably need: there's no point in making images bigger beyond this point (or displays with higher-than-retina-level DPI one would need to render them) because your eyes really won't be able to tell the difference.
thegreatluke
Aug 7, 05:29 PM
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
I'm SO angry too! I'm seriously going to be PISSED OFF until Apple offers a 50 GHz workstation with 32 GB of RAM and a 4 TB hard drive for free!
:rolleyes:
This and the MacBook are probably Apple's most competetively-priced computers.
Go ahead - buy a Mac Pro. When you get it, send me the useless graphics card. I wouldn't mind.
This is a good question. What happens if I put my x1900xt from my PC into one of these? Would it run under windows? If it would, then it should run under OS X with the correct driver, because it wouldn't be a hardware issue.
I am willing to bet that, at least for the graphics cards with mac specific drivers, you could buy the PC equivalent. If you branch out to different model numbers, you might run into problems.
Anyone have a MacPro they could lend me to test out my theory? :-)
Most PCI-express graphics cards would work in a Mac Pro without a problem.
Xtremehkr
Mar 28, 12:06 PM
I find this highly implausible. There is no way that Apple is going to let the iPhone fall too far behind Android phones. Maybe the design won't change much but the iPhone will certainly be updated.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4cbdf9decadcbbe57c020000-400-300/the-iphone-is-now-almost-half-of-apples-revenue.jpg
We already know that the iPhone is going to get the A5 chip in the next iteration and have already seen covers designed for the iP5.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4cbdf9decadcbbe57c020000-400-300/the-iphone-is-now-almost-half-of-apples-revenue.jpg
We already know that the iPhone is going to get the A5 chip in the next iteration and have already seen covers designed for the iP5.
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
Tilpots
May 7, 01:25 PM
The problem with this idea is that it's based on the assumption that Apple wants to be like Google and suddenly become an advertiser.
They purchased Quattro and developed iAds because it represents a mutually beneficial deal for developers on the app store and Apple. Apple designs the ads and runs them on their servers and developers get to deliver free or .$99 apps that can actually be profitable. Quid pro quo...Apple gets more apps hopefully that don't suck and the developer gets to reap the rewards of the success of the app store.
That same play doesn't come into effect with Mobileme. It's not dependent on 3rd party developers delivering content so thusly you will not see iAds in Mobileme.
It's no assumption at all that Apple's getting into the advertising game. They announced iAd loud and clear as part of the iPhone's new OS. Your assuming these ads won't make it into any thing other than apps and I'm saying you're mistaken.
Why would they limit a massive profit opportunity and a chance to deliver a huge financial blow to their new arch enemy? They wouldn't. Google's laid the groundwork for how these free services work. Apple's may just put their spin on it.
I do think that a paid, ad free version would exist. They'll continue their current service uninterrupted. But to offer it free, well, "Ain't nothin' free, baby." They'll generate revenue off it with their new ad system. It wouldn't make any sense not to. It's just the world in which we live.
They purchased Quattro and developed iAds because it represents a mutually beneficial deal for developers on the app store and Apple. Apple designs the ads and runs them on their servers and developers get to deliver free or .$99 apps that can actually be profitable. Quid pro quo...Apple gets more apps hopefully that don't suck and the developer gets to reap the rewards of the success of the app store.
That same play doesn't come into effect with Mobileme. It's not dependent on 3rd party developers delivering content so thusly you will not see iAds in Mobileme.
It's no assumption at all that Apple's getting into the advertising game. They announced iAd loud and clear as part of the iPhone's new OS. Your assuming these ads won't make it into any thing other than apps and I'm saying you're mistaken.
Why would they limit a massive profit opportunity and a chance to deliver a huge financial blow to their new arch enemy? They wouldn't. Google's laid the groundwork for how these free services work. Apple's may just put their spin on it.
I do think that a paid, ad free version would exist. They'll continue their current service uninterrupted. But to offer it free, well, "Ain't nothin' free, baby." They'll generate revenue off it with their new ad system. It wouldn't make any sense not to. It's just the world in which we live.
Marx55
May 6, 01:55 AM
Obviously, Apple did not learn from the PowerPC FIASCO. Too bad. Be prepared for a brave new world of 1984 closed Mac systems based on the horrible iOS. Apple is evolving. Hopefully, NOT!!! Or else millions will move to Windows. Apple decides.
toddybody
Apr 5, 03:09 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't be on these forums, I'd have a life, a job, and a smile.
If only... :(
Same here man , same here:(
It could be worse though, we could be the "ex jock who wasnt good enough to play professionally so he got a business degree at a community college and works as a Best Buy Manager". I choose Geekdom...Always a silver lining my friend :)
If only... :(
Same here man , same here:(
It could be worse though, we could be the "ex jock who wasnt good enough to play professionally so he got a business degree at a community college and works as a Best Buy Manager". I choose Geekdom...Always a silver lining my friend :)
callmemike20
Apr 18, 08:18 PM
What constitutes being a "last resort"?
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
You clause is a great idea, but we all know that taxes never go away. Wasn't the income tax supposed to be temporary also? Once the government gets their hands on more money, they become less worried about adjusting their spending because the problem is basically fixed (in their minds) due to the additional income.
You are right about using all the tools available to solve the problem. So let me recommend something. It's basically a reversal of your clause. The clause would allow a taxation adjustment (which would be predetermined) once 20% of spending has been cut (or some other amount).
An example (with simplified numbers):
Government Income: $1 billion
Government Spending: $1.50 billion
Total government debt: $5 billion
Defense Spending: $ 300 million (20%)
Social Security: $300 million (20%)
Police/Fire Spending: $200 million (about 13%)
Medical: $250 million (about 17%)
Other: $450 million (30%)
Now, let's say an agreement was made that would increase tax income to $1.2 billion, but in order for those taxes to be effective, the spending must be cut to $1.1 billion ( $0.1 billion difference for miscalculations and to pay off debt). So, each of those departments should still obtain the same amount of funding as % of government income, so 20% of $1.1 billion would be $220 million, which is a reduction of 80 million for defense.
Go down the line and do this for every department. If it doesn't work, then cut other programs to provide adequate funding the the extremely necessary departments that need it.
Sol
May 6, 05:16 AM
That came out of the blue. Running current applications on the next Rosetta would probably mean a negligible loss in speed. It does not matter, as native software will be iOS based and there is a thriving market for those already.
It all brings back memories of the PPC days. Apple must be confident about their ability to keep up with advancements by Intel and AMD. Considering the pace the iPad and iPhone processors have been getting upgraded I would guess that they can do it.
It all brings back memories of the PPC days. Apple must be confident about their ability to keep up with advancements by Intel and AMD. Considering the pace the iPad and iPhone processors have been getting upgraded I would guess that they can do it.
diamond.g
Apr 26, 03:38 PM
Where are the Android users that these stats support? I barely seen folks with Android devices. The vast majority clearly have iPhones. Maybe I need to be in a more tech centric urban area than Richmond, VA. I don't really care who's leading, I buy MY device for MY reasons, just saying from observation.
Hehe, up here in Arlington all I see is either iPhone or Android for personal phones, but everyone (in both camps) seems to have a BB as well...
Hehe, up here in Arlington all I see is either iPhone or Android for personal phones, but everyone (in both camps) seems to have a BB as well...
DJMastaWes
Aug 11, 10:10 AM
BINGO! :D
Well, due to my disappointment that they didn't release it at WWDC, I can't stand the waiting anymore so I've decided to go into suspended animation until they release the MBP in the next few weeks. Somebody make sure to wake me when its time to open up my wallet! :rolleyes:
Only if I get some of that opend wallet.
Well, due to my disappointment that they didn't release it at WWDC, I can't stand the waiting anymore so I've decided to go into suspended animation until they release the MBP in the next few weeks. Somebody make sure to wake me when its time to open up my wallet! :rolleyes:
Only if I get some of that opend wallet.
MacAddict1978
Apr 25, 10:46 AM
And they can get that data directly from the telecos without access to your phone. I highly doubt this database exists for that purpose when there are much more seamless/invisible ways to get the information. (Waits patiently for someone to down vote this reply since I mentioned the government getting information from the telcos...ignoring the fact I never took a position on it personally. So much for staying informed.)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20056344-281.html
No... they use a third party company to hack the phone, and have been for the past year. It's funny this just not became newsworthy as the cops have been on this since the 3GS and have convicted people with the location data. Sorry about your alibis.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20056344-281.html
No... they use a third party company to hack the phone, and have been for the past year. It's funny this just not became newsworthy as the cops have been on this since the 3GS and have convicted people with the location data. Sorry about your alibis.
johnnymg
Mar 28, 10:22 AM
Smells like another paid FUD piece. Someone wants to buy aapl at a better price. ;)
bruinsrme
Apr 9, 06:36 PM
Well, you�re wrong. You�d need two more parentheses to SEE it that way.
No, that's the way I see it:D
No, that's the way I see it:D
wacky4alanis
Jan 7, 09:10 AM
I tested my replacement dock this morning with no issues. I actually love this thing when it is working properly. It makes the whole "iPhone in the car" experience so much cleaner. I hop in the car, pop the iPhone into the mount, and it's ready for both music and nav. I also like how the TomTom app pauses the music during its voice instructions. Some people had complained about it being too abrupt, but it doesn't bother me at all. To be honest, I don't talk on the phone very much while driving, so I've only had one phone call using the bluetooth. That call was fine, but I don't have enough experience with it for a proper review.
andythursby
Apr 18, 05:04 PM
Do you really think the Galaxy tab and iPhone 3g/3gs aer<sic> "identical"?
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
justinLONG
Mar 29, 10:56 PM
I would not want to work in an american plant that manufactured apple products. could you imagine that?. there would probably be an apple union i'd have to join. :eek:
Erasmus
Aug 4, 07:38 PM
Looking closer, I can immediately see how they squeeze it into both of these computers...the trackpad isn't in the center of the laptop. How freaking messed up is that? They slid it over the to the left so that the optical drive could fit. That would bug the heck out of me.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
Mr_Ed
Nov 22, 10:23 AM
...
Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.
If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.
...
I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.
Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.
If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.
...
I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.
-aggie-
May 4, 12:11 PM
I updated the map, look at above post.
And nope, the healing treasure is gone forever. I put it there because I'm cruel. :D
Face my mighty wrath demon!!:mad:
And nope, the healing treasure is gone forever. I put it there because I'm cruel. :D
Face my mighty wrath demon!!:mad:
geiger167
Sep 11, 02:51 PM
Not really sure if any of the rumoured devices interest me tommorow, as living in the UK we probably will be denied any kind of movie download service (still waiting for tv show downloads to start) The media streaming device might be a cool idea but unless it had support for divx/transport stream files wouldn't really interest me either and cant imagine apple allowing support of an outside player like VLC and without any kind of download structure available to view apple sourced files outside the USA cant imagine it taking off. Having moaned a bit though I have still ordered a 24 imac and cant wait for it to arrive ( I love watching hdtv files on my 20' imac now so 24' must be heaven)