Bibulous
Sep 14, 01:20 AM
gahhhhh.....these iphone rumors are driving me crazy....with anticipation. When is this gonna finally happen? Hopefully before the end of the year.
I think it will be here for Christmas, if not then not till next summer :(
I think it will be here for Christmas, if not then not till next summer :(
jellomizer
Sep 14, 04:58 PM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
I Hope so. I wanna a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro!
I Hope so. I wanna a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro!
needthephone
Sep 15, 05:57 PM
Sounds good. I want this phone!
To me its optics which are just as important as how many MP's. I have a 2MP Nokia 6280 which is OK but its let down by poor optics- For a camera I would rather a Nikon SLR any day
To me its optics which are just as important as how many MP's. I have a 2MP Nokia 6280 which is OK but its let down by poor optics- For a camera I would rather a Nikon SLR any day
Machead III
Sep 1, 03:03 AM
Same here, although I'd probably just get a current Macbook if that's the case. I decided I won't wait beyond Paris Expo.
Although I might still be tempted to buy a MBP if Apple offered a 160GB hd for a reasonable or it were easy to put one in there.
Same here. I'm not waiting beyond Paris, but I won't be able to afford an MBP, unless I bought the current models on eBay proceeding an update.
Ugh... it would just be so much simpler if Apple "revealed their hand" all at once so i knew where I stood. No point in delaying a MB update, it's already been out longer than the average MBP cycle.
Although I might still be tempted to buy a MBP if Apple offered a 160GB hd for a reasonable or it were easy to put one in there.
Same here. I'm not waiting beyond Paris, but I won't be able to afford an MBP, unless I bought the current models on eBay proceeding an update.
Ugh... it would just be so much simpler if Apple "revealed their hand" all at once so i knew where I stood. No point in delaying a MB update, it's already been out longer than the average MBP cycle.
h00ligan
Apr 20, 10:52 AM
Thanks for actually updating it and replying to me. That's refreshing.
No prob. Sorry I wasn't more verbose at first. I actually edited it fast (on my iPhone lol) but it took a min.
No prob. Sorry I wasn't more verbose at first. I actually edited it fast (on my iPhone lol) but it took a min.
TrollToddington
Apr 23, 01:58 PM
As far as you're concerned maybe, but as far as what's common or not, you're out of it. There's a reason every laptop out there has some kind of external display connector.
But silly me, I must be a moron for using the mini display port right ? :rolleyes:
You're doing it wrong. I plug in 4 cables. Power, Monitor, Speakers, USB. My keyboard/mouse/tablet/Printer/iPhone/iPod all get recognized instantly. That's what the USB hub on my desk is for. 1 cable, all devices.
If Apple had docks, it would be even better. Just drop the laptop in place and voila. But I guess docks just aren't esthetic enough.
There is nothing uncommon about it, so again, thank you for calling me stupid because I dare use a MBA as my only computer and I dare launch games on it, while connected to an external monitor of all things!
Keep your insults for yourself next time.
I kindly ask you to not put words in my mouth I've never written. I've never called you 'moron' or 'stupid' or using foul language about you. 'Keep your insults for yourself next time' is not a very kind thing to say, and I am actually wondering whether I should report you to the moderator.
But silly me, I must be a moron for using the mini display port right ? :rolleyes:
You're doing it wrong. I plug in 4 cables. Power, Monitor, Speakers, USB. My keyboard/mouse/tablet/Printer/iPhone/iPod all get recognized instantly. That's what the USB hub on my desk is for. 1 cable, all devices.
If Apple had docks, it would be even better. Just drop the laptop in place and voila. But I guess docks just aren't esthetic enough.
There is nothing uncommon about it, so again, thank you for calling me stupid because I dare use a MBA as my only computer and I dare launch games on it, while connected to an external monitor of all things!
Keep your insults for yourself next time.
I kindly ask you to not put words in my mouth I've never written. I've never called you 'moron' or 'stupid' or using foul language about you. 'Keep your insults for yourself next time' is not a very kind thing to say, and I am actually wondering whether I should report you to the moderator.
GGJstudios
Mar 18, 07:58 PM
It certainly has a huge amount to do with market share and therefore return on investment in creating malware.
False. Read post #95 and post #59.
False. Read post #95 and post #59.
Stevamundo
Apr 28, 05:43 PM
Well thank you Steve Balmer. Why in the hell did Gates left him in charge I never will understand.
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
While Steve Jobs is great.
See you have two kinds of Steves, one is an idiot and other one is highly intelligent. :D
zacman
Apr 20, 12:36 PM
1984 is not happening because companies and the government spies on you but because of people that are saying: "So what? It's not a big issue."
dukebound85
Apr 11, 03:43 PM
To some extent, sure.
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 01:51 AM
And your ethics take an even worse.
The system is clearly broken and you are living proof of it.
Heck if something like that you did that me i would use this thread as poof your actions and laugh my ass off when end up in jail.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
The system is clearly broken and you are living proof of it.
Heck if something like that you did that me i would use this thread as poof your actions and laugh my ass off when end up in jail.
Good luck tracking my actual identity down. And also good luck getting anything you dug up admitted in court, because there is absolutely nothing legal about introducing any evidence of my identity you found by tying this account back to my IP/ISP without a warrant.
-Don
LarryC
Mar 22, 05:31 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
Amen. It really is way over due :D I don't think I could have waited much longer.
Amen. It really is way over due :D I don't think I could have waited much longer.
McDave
Sep 4, 09:46 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Too true! Why create a device to capture/de-schedule broadcast TV (with the mis-timings, satellite rain-fade & commercials) when you can sell most of the content directly, with one mouse/remote-click.
I think this will do to movies & TV what the iPod did for music, just don't forget the Blu-Ray player.
McD
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Too true! Why create a device to capture/de-schedule broadcast TV (with the mis-timings, satellite rain-fade & commercials) when you can sell most of the content directly, with one mouse/remote-click.
I think this will do to movies & TV what the iPod did for music, just don't forget the Blu-Ray player.
McD
marksman
Mar 23, 05:19 PM
I am going to say that I am in favor of not having Apps whose only purpose is to assist people in breaking laws and also increase the possibility that someone innocent will get injured or killed because of the use of such an Application.
In other words if there is no legitimate use for an App other than to break the law and put people's lives in dangers, I think it is reasonable to ask Apple to review their policy on such things.
Anyone who drives drunk these days has major problems. Anyone who uses a phone/tablet app to assist them in driving drunk is a complete arse and I can only hope bad things happen to them.
In other words if there is no legitimate use for an App other than to break the law and put people's lives in dangers, I think it is reasonable to ask Apple to review their policy on such things.
Anyone who drives drunk these days has major problems. Anyone who uses a phone/tablet app to assist them in driving drunk is a complete arse and I can only hope bad things happen to them.
edcrosay
Oct 12, 11:57 PM
I'm glad this isn't in an 8gb variety... because I will definatly start to regret the purchase of my black one.
Nomadski
Apr 13, 07:07 AM
MagnusVonMagnum -
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
AppliedVisual
Oct 27, 01:29 PM
Of course, they've never really cared if people get offended, even their own voice actors (Issac Hayes).
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
T'hain Esh Kelch
Sep 12, 02:45 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, someone reply to my post....
as a person who just purchased the last version of 5gen video ipod, this comes to me as quite a shock really.... i knew this was coming but actaully hoping that it was everything 'rumor' but turns out it's not.....
anyway, my point is:
WHY DIDN'T STEVE MENTION 30 GIG IPOD, WHILE MOST OF THE ATTENTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON 8O GIG SOLELY??
although 30 and 80 seem to share most of the new features which are obviously crap(game? who plays that? and search bar? i don't need that crap, too shabby, biatch)
but the thing is BATTERY, gosh
they've plugged about how their new 80 gen has total 20 hrs of battery life and 6.5 hrs of video play, but what about freaking 30???? I SERIOUSLY WANNA KNOW.
i've been to apple store and engadget for live broadcast, but there was no info whatsoever on 30's battery, other than its MAXIMUM battery was 14.... the thing i wanna know is its VIDEO MAXIMUM BATTERY.... is it, again 2 hours? i hope so!! cause i just bought this ol' **** at such higher price and now i feel totally duped. well it was my fault in the first place but i thought it was all RUMOR......................GAWD
No need to use large letters like that, it is considered rude on web-boards.
And the thing is, Steve can't mention every single little bit that has changed. Are you too lazy to go to Apples webpage where everything is stated very clearly on the iPods spec page?
as a person who just purchased the last version of 5gen video ipod, this comes to me as quite a shock really.... i knew this was coming but actaully hoping that it was everything 'rumor' but turns out it's not.....
anyway, my point is:
WHY DIDN'T STEVE MENTION 30 GIG IPOD, WHILE MOST OF THE ATTENTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON 8O GIG SOLELY??
although 30 and 80 seem to share most of the new features which are obviously crap(game? who plays that? and search bar? i don't need that crap, too shabby, biatch)
but the thing is BATTERY, gosh
they've plugged about how their new 80 gen has total 20 hrs of battery life and 6.5 hrs of video play, but what about freaking 30???? I SERIOUSLY WANNA KNOW.
i've been to apple store and engadget for live broadcast, but there was no info whatsoever on 30's battery, other than its MAXIMUM battery was 14.... the thing i wanna know is its VIDEO MAXIMUM BATTERY.... is it, again 2 hours? i hope so!! cause i just bought this ol' **** at such higher price and now i feel totally duped. well it was my fault in the first place but i thought it was all RUMOR......................GAWD
No need to use large letters like that, it is considered rude on web-boards.
And the thing is, Steve can't mention every single little bit that has changed. Are you too lazy to go to Apples webpage where everything is stated very clearly on the iPods spec page?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
g7by08believeit
Oct 12, 05:55 PM
I second this prediction
I don't really feel like reading the article from the Chicago Tribune again, but I believe (though, due to my lack of reading it again, I may be creating a major faux-pas) that it said that she bought ten of the red iPods... so unless she only has 10 guests, I'm doubting that EVERYONE will get one; however, I do agree that there will be some sort of giveaway.
Cheers
I don't really feel like reading the article from the Chicago Tribune again, but I believe (though, due to my lack of reading it again, I may be creating a major faux-pas) that it said that she bought ten of the red iPods... so unless she only has 10 guests, I'm doubting that EVERYONE will get one; however, I do agree that there will be some sort of giveaway.
Cheers
IMPMAC
Apr 4, 12:11 PM
Did he use an iGun?
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
davede70
Sep 11, 09:32 PM
Could the combo of the update on the airport extreme and the update to the video ipod = a way to wirelessly update your ipod?
No comments:
Post a Comment