Blue Fox
Apr 22, 06:39 PM
Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
weitzner
Oct 27, 08:09 PM
When the day comes that holographic screens make it to the market...maybe the green lust will be satiated and all will be well..unless the projector for holograms is a candy-coated ball of lead, powered by the liver of an infant.
well what else CLOULD it be?
well what else CLOULD it be?
asdf542
Apr 14, 02:10 PM
Honestly, can you try to post without arguing against claims I never made? That is at least 3 times now and it shows a lack of honesty or reading ability. I am not sure which.
The above text contains:
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.Pot, meet kettle.
The above text contains:
Strawman argument/claiming what I said wasn't true without providing any proof/Insults
I never said it was going to Mac only (though you have accused me of that twice). I agreed with the insinuation that it could be. I never said manufacturers would have to add it separately. I did say that the article you posted said only that it would be available to all and that it didn't say all would add it. Mainly, I said that, because you know, the article doesn't actually say that.Here's another recap for you:
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only
You: Bingo
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be true
You: Go on a rampage of insults
I think we are done. No point in debating someone that doesn't understand what he is reading and also makes up things to reply to. Arguing against someone that uses strawman arguments or misses common subtleties in language is bad enough. Arguing against someone that is making up things to argue against is pointless.Pot, meet kettle.
nchu429
Aug 23, 08:49 PM
thats:
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
Satori
Apr 19, 08:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
Tones2
Apr 22, 02:30 PM
Look at netflix and hulu plus. if you can get access to TONS of content through a subscription what is the point of owning an actual physical copy if you can watch it from your queue online on your device?
Have you ever actually watched Netflix or Hulu on a iPhone or iPad over 3G? It totally sucks - not even close to what it looks like when stored locally, especially on the iPad.
Tony
Have you ever actually watched Netflix or Hulu on a iPhone or iPad over 3G? It totally sucks - not even close to what it looks like when stored locally, especially on the iPad.
Tony
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 20, 01:47 PM
I think the main problem is people stating, or at least THINKING they have privacy rights. You do, limited, but you do. The problem is, those rights REALLLLY don't apply when your on someone else's property. AKA T-Mobiles, AT&T or Verizon. You don't OWN their networks, you use them, you rent them. Just like a landlord can give you notice and say, 'I'm going to come check out the house/apt' AT&T can say (albiet in tiny print in a 300 page TOS) I reserve the right to collect your data. You sign the dotted line, get your fancy phone and don't give a ****. Thats untill someone treads on the truth then you become a tight-ass over it.
If a bunch of script kiddies on 4Chan can track down the 'Dog **** Lady' in Japan, you people don't got a chance in HELL. You got Cell Phones, and subscribe to internet forums, your IP is splayed all over the internet like beer at a frat party and your crying because a file tracks what cell tower your connected to? Theres a lot worse things then Death, this ain't one of them.
If a bunch of script kiddies on 4Chan can track down the 'Dog **** Lady' in Japan, you people don't got a chance in HELL. You got Cell Phones, and subscribe to internet forums, your IP is splayed all over the internet like beer at a frat party and your crying because a file tracks what cell tower your connected to? Theres a lot worse things then Death, this ain't one of them.
segfaultdotorg
May 3, 02:32 PM
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
AppleScruff1
Apr 4, 11:41 AM
I've never seen a mall security guard carrying a gun.
unobtainium
Apr 30, 01:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
So previous iMac design lasted 4 years...it's been 3. Previous MBP design lasted, what, 6 years? Rumors are meaningless until we see leaked shots or something (remember the iPad 2 rumors?)
I don't think that overhauling the exterior of iMac or MBP is high on Apple's priority list at the moment and I'd be surprised if it happened within the next year.
PlaceofDis
Nov 13, 04:07 PM
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.
they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.
they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.
psionic001
Sep 5, 11:33 PM
How big would a high quality feature length movie be?
And no, I havn't read all 6 pages of the posts, so sorry if it's been discussed.
And no, I havn't read all 6 pages of the posts, so sorry if it's been discussed.
tatonka
Mar 24, 09:01 AM
I don't get peoples fascination with thunderbolt. Besides that it is new, it is pretty much useless right now. I agree that it is a cool port once they come out with the suitable accessories .. but til then, I couldn't care less.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
.JPG "Steffi Graf Photo Collection")
aswitcher
Sep 6, 02:00 AM
Engadget and others are announcing wireless HDMI being release in November. Hopefully Apple is leading the way on this.
monke
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
Hmmm.. Ok, not really shocked by the design a whole lot, but finally there is some (for lack of a better word) proof of what it looks like. Sure hope it comes in aluminum and white :D
balamw
Sep 5, 05:20 PM
This is based on a 1-hr episode of Lost is about 200MB.
You're assuming that the resolution (and thus bitrate) will remain the same. I hope this isn't the case since 320x240 is fine for TV, but for movies I'd like at least 720x480 (DVD quality) or 1280x720 (720p) which means 4-9x as many bits.
You get some advantage from the codec, so a 4x file can only be 2x as big, but pretty soon you're talking about gigs of data.
B
You're assuming that the resolution (and thus bitrate) will remain the same. I hope this isn't the case since 320x240 is fine for TV, but for movies I'd like at least 720x480 (DVD quality) or 1280x720 (720p) which means 4-9x as many bits.
You get some advantage from the codec, so a 4x file can only be 2x as big, but pretty soon you're talking about gigs of data.
B
organerito
Apr 30, 06:05 PM
Because that huge base of thunderbolt based devices is overwhelming! :p
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
dime21
Apr 14, 03:41 PM
What about the MacBook and MacBook Air?
you missed the point. entirely. it flew right over your head like a bird.
you missed the point. entirely. it flew right over your head like a bird.
bloodycape
Aug 24, 03:03 AM
I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
New rumor!
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
davidw
Apr 22, 11:45 AM
Ooh, I wonder what the other upgrades will be. Macbook Airs are becoming really awesome notebooks. Hopefully it someday takes over the macbook. iPad <Macbook (Air) < Macbook Pro < iMac < Mac Pro
That's what's going to happen, I'm sure of it. And I'm honestly kind of impressed that the MacBook Pro still doesn't give you an option to buy one without a DVD drive; I have a 2011 MBP and I swear, it doesn't get any use whatsoever. Apple's obsession with using every square millimeter of space on a portable device apparently ends when it comes to optical disk drives on MBPs.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
That's what's going to happen, I'm sure of it. And I'm honestly kind of impressed that the MacBook Pro still doesn't give you an option to buy one without a DVD drive; I have a 2011 MBP and I swear, it doesn't get any use whatsoever. Apple's obsession with using every square millimeter of space on a portable device apparently ends when it comes to optical disk drives on MBPs.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
bushman4
May 1, 03:19 AM
Well here it is Sunday, still no official word from Apple or any other credible source confirming tuesdays launch. I just hope that this is NOT going to be a huge let down.
And hopefully when we do see this launch tuesday most people say Wow.
And hopefully when we do see this launch tuesday most people say Wow.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 06:01 PM
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
fblack
Sep 10, 12:25 PM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
Jackie.Cane
Sep 13, 09:11 PM
Dear god, enough with the phone rumors already!:mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment