davidcmc
Mar 22, 01:40 PM
Lol. So many kid Apple fanboys.
iOS is clearly outdated if compared to Honeycomb and QNX.
The iPad 2 is nice, but it needs more RAM. Multitasking is just terrible with few RAM and bad OS processes handling.
Multitasking in iOS is sometimes a joke, specially if you're web browsing and using some chat app (like IM+, BeeJive etc.).
I'm glad that RIM and Samsung come with those prices.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
iOS is clearly outdated if compared to Honeycomb and QNX.
The iPad 2 is nice, but it needs more RAM. Multitasking is just terrible with few RAM and bad OS processes handling.
Multitasking in iOS is sometimes a joke, specially if you're web browsing and using some chat app (like IM+, BeeJive etc.).
I'm glad that RIM and Samsung come with those prices.
Next months will be crucial for me to decide the successor of my iPad 1.
alent1234
Mar 23, 08:32 AM
LOL what?
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
LG and others had semi-smartphones with 3.5" screens back in 2006 and early 2007
radiohead14
Apr 6, 10:47 AM
i would love a refreshed SB 11" MBA with thunderbolt, backlit keyboard, at least 7 hours of battery, and lion. apple: you could take my money right away if you come through with this!
Grokgod
Jul 28, 05:49 PM
I certainly agree that the Core duo will be the lastest, latest.
yet what about it will be so valuable to the user, that has jsut purchased one.
That he should return her new unit.
Does it bake cookies, ? no.
Produce less heat? no , it wont really. and if it does it will be small differences in possible either direction. Cooler or hotter.
So, I see the only real difference with CPU changes as being limited to a small boost in hertz. Minor at best.
In the iMac realm there will be little other changes, most are limited to the Macpro area etc.
And returning it will cost time and effort waiting for the next iMac which may not appear for some time.
yet what about it will be so valuable to the user, that has jsut purchased one.
That he should return her new unit.
Does it bake cookies, ? no.
Produce less heat? no , it wont really. and if it does it will be small differences in possible either direction. Cooler or hotter.
So, I see the only real difference with CPU changes as being limited to a small boost in hertz. Minor at best.
In the iMac realm there will be little other changes, most are limited to the Macpro area etc.
And returning it will cost time and effort waiting for the next iMac which may not appear for some time.
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
steve_hill4
Jul 27, 02:07 PM
How about a new Mac at WWDC?
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
While I like your thinking, your mock-up is wrong. If Apple are going to release a mid-Tower it has to appeal to both gamers and those looking for a headless iMac. They would really have to bring out about three main models, one which was basically an upgradable iMac spec for a couple to few hundred bucks less than the real deal and two higher spec conroes, (short of Mac Pro though). From what I can see, yours looks too small to easily customise, which would appeal to gamers.
Single optical, single HD (2nd slot free), assume better specs will mainly lie with graphics and ram.
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
While I like your thinking, your mock-up is wrong. If Apple are going to release a mid-Tower it has to appeal to both gamers and those looking for a headless iMac. They would really have to bring out about three main models, one which was basically an upgradable iMac spec for a couple to few hundred bucks less than the real deal and two higher spec conroes, (short of Mac Pro though). From what I can see, yours looks too small to easily customise, which would appeal to gamers.
Single optical, single HD (2nd slot free), assume better specs will mainly lie with graphics and ram.
macnews
Apr 6, 09:42 AM
I have been hoping for some time that Final Cut Server be integrated into Final Cut. Considering Lion Server is included with Lion, I'd say the chances are pretty high! Finally, some real asset management!
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
I had the same thought and hope. Asset management is a pain in FCP. Would be nice to see some improvements with that and would be nice to see an easier implementation of creating your own render farm. Even just using one other mac to render w/o having to leave a main edit machine would be nice. Maybe this can be done in the current version but not easily - at least what I have found. Thus, hope it is easier to find/do in a new version.
rosalindavenue
Jul 28, 06:11 AM
I am waiting until the new MBP is released with merom. I don't care if it's now or in January.
My question is: What's the fastest way to get the new MBP into my hands? Is ordering it online after it's announcement the fastest, or going to an apple store?
I live within 3 stores. So I can play the call and place one on hold bit.
I'd think you would have a better chance to get one fast with the stores. I don't live near one and I ordered an ibook last August when it was upgraded-- even with expedited shipping it still took 10 days to arrive from China. (Apple refunded the expedited shipping fee).
My question is: What's the fastest way to get the new MBP into my hands? Is ordering it online after it's announcement the fastest, or going to an apple store?
I live within 3 stores. So I can play the call and place one on hold bit.
I'd think you would have a better chance to get one fast with the stores. I don't live near one and I ordered an ibook last August when it was upgraded-- even with expedited shipping it still took 10 days to arrive from China. (Apple refunded the expedited shipping fee).
DocNo
Apr 11, 10:13 AM
There is a part of me that hopes Apple screws up and dumbs down FCS. This is the only remaining software that keeps me buying expensive Macs. If they turn FCS into a glorified iApp, then I'm dumping my Mac's and moving on to a build your own PC where I can run Linux and all of the industry standard professional apps.
Why wait (and risk them not living up to your expectation)? Just pretend Apple dumbed it down now and start your move now - like that's the only thing "keeping" you on the Mac platform :rolleyes:
Why wait (and risk them not living up to your expectation)? Just pretend Apple dumbed it down now and start your move now - like that's the only thing "keeping" you on the Mac platform :rolleyes:
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 01:17 PM
Oh boo hoo about the companies being "booted" from sponsorships. The company I work for goes to trade shows. The time invested is actually quite small and most of the materials are in inventory anyway. The presentations are usually based on the same script. I bet the companies aren't that disappointed. In fact they would like to be there and see what Apple is up to more than anyone else. So I bet they'll send the same presenter staff there to view and record anything of note to send back to their company.
Maybe NAB is a different beast than what you and your company typically deal with? The big players at NAB can spend millions and take the better part of the year getting ready (both from a marketing and product development standpoint). At least that's the gist of what I read when Avid and later Apple, bailed on NAB in years past citing a lack of ROI for all the money, man power and artificial product deadlines it took to present at NAB every year.
I used to come to Macrumors to read about Mac news, but now its all anit-apple crap.
You come to Macrumors to read about Mac news...:D
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it.
That would be kinda weird since Avid brought in Kevin Smith to talk at NAB this year.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
Main or only venue? No. Signature event to get quality face time w/their target audience away from the insane cattle call that is the NAB showroom floor? Yes. Avid hosting Kevin Smith is not an everyday occurrence. Canon presenting Philip Bloom was schedule for only the SuperMeet. Same with Alexis Van Hurkman's talk about color grading.
Lethal
Maybe NAB is a different beast than what you and your company typically deal with? The big players at NAB can spend millions and take the better part of the year getting ready (both from a marketing and product development standpoint). At least that's the gist of what I read when Avid and later Apple, bailed on NAB in years past citing a lack of ROI for all the money, man power and artificial product deadlines it took to present at NAB every year.
I used to come to Macrumors to read about Mac news, but now its all anit-apple crap.
You come to Macrumors to read about Mac news...:D
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it.
That would be kinda weird since Avid brought in Kevin Smith to talk at NAB this year.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
Main or only venue? No. Signature event to get quality face time w/their target audience away from the insane cattle call that is the NAB showroom floor? Yes. Avid hosting Kevin Smith is not an everyday occurrence. Canon presenting Philip Bloom was schedule for only the SuperMeet. Same with Alexis Van Hurkman's talk about color grading.
Lethal
crawdad62
Aug 25, 03:21 PM
I was a "Helper" in the discussions and I'm now a "Level 4." I've been around the discussions for quite a while. I can't say anything about the support people are getting on the phone by personal experience but I've seen a lot of rumblings on the discussions.
As was stated it's hard to gauge exactly how people are treated because most are frustrated even before they call. Same thing happens in the discussions.
My only dealings with Apple Support was a few years ago. On Christmas day the modem on my Pismo went out. I just for a lark called to see if anyone was in and not only was someone there I was taken care of quite nicely. The next day I had a box to send it off and three days later I had it back. Not bad for a notebook that was about two weeks short of the warranty expiring.
I think that Apples growth of late might be the cause of some problems. They've got a bunch of new user (switchers) that might need a bit more "hand holding" (and that's not meant to be derogatory, it's just people that aren't exactly used to Mac in general).
I know one thing for sure. Apple's decision to let their Discussions staff go wasn't a good thing.
As was stated it's hard to gauge exactly how people are treated because most are frustrated even before they call. Same thing happens in the discussions.
My only dealings with Apple Support was a few years ago. On Christmas day the modem on my Pismo went out. I just for a lark called to see if anyone was in and not only was someone there I was taken care of quite nicely. The next day I had a box to send it off and three days later I had it back. Not bad for a notebook that was about two weeks short of the warranty expiring.
I think that Apples growth of late might be the cause of some problems. They've got a bunch of new user (switchers) that might need a bit more "hand holding" (and that's not meant to be derogatory, it's just people that aren't exactly used to Mac in general).
I know one thing for sure. Apple's decision to let their Discussions staff go wasn't a good thing.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 12:56 PM
Hahahahaha you do not know much about the cell business here in the U.S. T-Mobile uses Cingulars network in a better part of the country, and Cingular uses T-Mobiles in the other parts, under a roaming deal agreement they made when Deustche Telecom bought Voicestream creating T-Mobile.
Hahahaha you obviously have not been a customer of either T-Mo or Cingular. And if you looked at their coverage maps, Cingular's coverage is quite a bit better than T-Mobile's. Yes, they do share SOME towers, but not all.
Hahahaha you obviously have not been a customer of either T-Mo or Cingular. And if you looked at their coverage maps, Cingular's coverage is quite a bit better than T-Mobile's. Yes, they do share SOME towers, but not all.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 11:40 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:21 PM
if anyone knows how to change architectures its Apple. we all know they've got OS X running on an iPad already it the labs.
iOS is Mac OS X, just for ARM-processors and optimized for the platform.
iOS is Mac OS X, just for ARM-processors and optimized for the platform.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 12:14 PM
I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 03:47 PM
... hmmm ... i just ordered a mac pro quad 3ghz ... 8 cores would be somehow nicer ;)
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
.a
The 8-core Mac Pro @ 2.33GHz should be about the same price as the quad-core 2.66GHz. Theoretically, the 8-core 2.66GHz should be about the same price as what you just ordered.
Before you seriously consider canceling, just be sure that your workflow can benefit from the various CPU cores. Very few applications can take advantage of dual-core CPUs, let alone quad-core. In most situations, you need to be running various instances or multiple apps at once that can handle 2 or more threads to benefit from these newer multi-core systems. If you do any 3D animation or heavy rendering, scientific computing, visualization, massive database management/development, etc... You may be a candidate. Depending on your requirements, a quad-core 3GHz may still be the best performing system for you.
marksman
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Only if you do not add products like the iPad and the iPod Touch. In other words, if you throw out 50% of the iOS products.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
grue
Apr 11, 08:42 PM
Oh, and this is a more minor gripe, btu they need to pull their heads out of their asses and fix their volume licensing program, it's rubbish.
LethalWolfe
Apr 5, 08:07 PM
As someone who's attended NAB yearly, (and again this year) Apple has not had a presence there since and currently are NOT on the exhibitor list for this years convention. Will take pics if I'm wrong though.
The Supermeet is a meet-up of Final Cut Pro User Groups from across the country that coincides with NAB. It is not a part of NAB itself.
Lethal
The Supermeet is a meet-up of Final Cut Pro User Groups from across the country that coincides with NAB. It is not a part of NAB itself.
Lethal
d0minick
Mar 26, 10:41 AM
Question, as all my previous macs were used, I recently purchased the new macbook pro 2011 line and a refreshed Air. Will I be able to get Lion at a discount for the recent purchase or do I pay full price? I was just wondering. Thanks!
DStaal
Sep 13, 09:35 AM
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
How much more 'blind' do you want it? All the programmer has to do at this point is use multiple threads. Even if they don't, multiple cores will be automatically used for system and other processes.
Splitting one thread so that it ran cocurent with itself is a recipie for massive trouble. Mac OS X is about as blind as any system out there for the programmer. There may be some more optimizations that the system could make in it's own handling of multiprocessing, but from a programmer's perspective it doesn't matter how many cores the system has. (Unless you really want it to.)
puggles
Jun 15, 01:50 PM
Well I went to RS around 2 EST and she couldn't get it to go through but she just called me and said im all set... Not holding my breath though. I have a backup preorder at apple...it would be way easier to just go to RS though.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 06:04 AM
Damn PowerPC fans.
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo
Apple is INTEL now. We Love Intel Because Stevie Tells Us So.
We hate AMD and IBM. Should Apple ever move to another CPU provider, we will seamlessly transition to hating Intel again. This is the Way of the Mac.
What's so good about G5's anyway? They are slow, too hot, and skull juice.
Why do we love Intel? Because Steve says to, and Core 2 Duo is powerful, cool, not permanently drunk, allows us to run Windows and helps Apple increase its market share.
We love ATi because just like Intel, their products are the best at the moment. We still love nVIDIA because their GPUs are in the Mac Pro.
We love Israel because they make our Core 2 Duos and we love China because they make our Macs. We love California because that's where Our Lord Stevie J is (Don't particularly care about the rest of the US, sorry guys).
We love our Big Cats because they run so fast and look so clean and powerful (Hmmm... Mystery of OS codenames revealed?) and of course because they are not Windows, which are susceptible to breaking...
People who live in Windows shouldn't throw Viruses?
Off track...
Anyway, Rawr to all you PowerPC fanboys (And girls)
Intel 4EVER!
I know this is just a joke, but even so it's stupid, because the implication is that the only reason anyone here might like the chips Intel is coming out with is because they have been brainwashed into liking them now that Apple uses them (i.e. if Apple was still using PowerPC chips, or had switched to AMD, we would all be sitting here talking about how crappy the Core 2 Duo chips are).
I'm sure there are some people like that, but it is insulting to plenty of people here who actually do know something about the various chips that Intel and AMD make and base their opinions on them just on their actual merits and weaknesses.
-Zadillo