JAT
Mar 23, 12:19 AM
Oh, look. woot! has a tablet today. Spiffy!
DocAlge
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I am new to this (and still waiting to buy my first Mac). BUT why all this talk about speed and not about screen size.
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
Multimedia
Aug 18, 08:53 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.
-JASMINE(ALADDIN).jpg "disney princess jasmine")
netdog
Aug 11, 10:47 AM
"...Earlier than some may be expecting"??
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
VanNess
Aug 7, 09:24 PM
Alright, I'll take these one by one...
Time Machine: Nice feature, nice implementation, nice eye-candy - but I don't see it as a heavily used feature. I mean, you should hope that it doesn't have to be heavily used. I think I can count the number of instances on one hand where I deleted a file that I regretted deleting later, and I've never screwed up my install to the point where I would need to revert the system back to a previous state. Others may have had different experiences from me and this is a nice "insurance policy" utility to have, but overall I don't see it as having a major impact on the majority of Mac users in day to day usage.
Enhanced Mail: This is nice, but html mail composition was promised for Tiger and that turned into, for all practical intents and purposes, vaporware. Now here it is front and center in Leopard. Grrrrrr. (Now you know why they called it Tiger, lol)
Enhanced iChat: Nifty new features, but here's the deal: Apple needs to look beyond Cupertino and survey the IM landscape that exists outside of the US, because it's huge. Most PC-using kids and twenty-somethings overseas live and breath and depend on two kinds of software, an internet browser and an IM client. Overseas, Yahoo and MS Messenger are all that's used and the features that are provided by those clients are heavily depended upon by the overseas youth culture because they were born and raised on that stuff. If iChat (or any other client) at a minimum can't provide support for Yahoo and MS Messenger protocols with absolute one for one feature parity with PC's, you can forget about selling a Mac (or at least the Mac OS) to these kids, because it's just an absolute deal-killer without IM support that they are used to. The IM culture overseas is just that big, that integrated, and they (along with their IM friends) don't use AOL and they don't use .Mac and they aren't going to. The IM scene overseas and it's dependence on MS Messenger and Yahoo is practically a youth culture in and of itself now and ignoring that is simply bad business for Apple at this point.
Spaces: This one looks pretty cool
Enhanced Dashboard: The only thing that really needs to be enhanced with Dashboard is widget collection organization. With the sheer number of widgets that are out now, hammering on the little arrows in the Widget Bar and watching bar after bar after bar of widgets fly by while you're searching for a particular widget that you may or may not remember the name of just isn't working. The Spaces (virtual desktop) feature may come to the rescue here if different collections of widgets can be maintained on separate desktops, but is seems like Spaces is overkill just for that. Dashboard needs it's own "Spaces" (multiple Dashboard instances) or a better way of managing large widget collections.
Enhanced Spotlight: Its all good
Enhanced iCal: Okay...what else?
More Accessible: This is actually quite good as I suspect disabled access to computers will become more of a focus as time goes on particularly with disabled or handicapped employees. So it's great that Apple is leading the charge here.
Core Animation: Another avenue to the treasure chest of Apple OS eye-candy for third-party devs, just in case Core Image wasn't floating anyone's boat
Increased 64-bit support: Which will be great whenever we see increased 64-bit applications showing up.
But the overall impression is, so what? Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think the so-called "secret" unseen, unknown features are the ones that will really matter for most users, what was shown today is by and large fluff. If Jobs says Apple isn't going to reveal some of Leopard's features for fear of MS pulling one of it's copy jobs, then they must be fairly significant features worth protecting until the last minute. So what matters with Leopard isn't what was seen today, what really matters is what wasn't seen.
Time Machine: Nice feature, nice implementation, nice eye-candy - but I don't see it as a heavily used feature. I mean, you should hope that it doesn't have to be heavily used. I think I can count the number of instances on one hand where I deleted a file that I regretted deleting later, and I've never screwed up my install to the point where I would need to revert the system back to a previous state. Others may have had different experiences from me and this is a nice "insurance policy" utility to have, but overall I don't see it as having a major impact on the majority of Mac users in day to day usage.
Enhanced Mail: This is nice, but html mail composition was promised for Tiger and that turned into, for all practical intents and purposes, vaporware. Now here it is front and center in Leopard. Grrrrrr. (Now you know why they called it Tiger, lol)
Enhanced iChat: Nifty new features, but here's the deal: Apple needs to look beyond Cupertino and survey the IM landscape that exists outside of the US, because it's huge. Most PC-using kids and twenty-somethings overseas live and breath and depend on two kinds of software, an internet browser and an IM client. Overseas, Yahoo and MS Messenger are all that's used and the features that are provided by those clients are heavily depended upon by the overseas youth culture because they were born and raised on that stuff. If iChat (or any other client) at a minimum can't provide support for Yahoo and MS Messenger protocols with absolute one for one feature parity with PC's, you can forget about selling a Mac (or at least the Mac OS) to these kids, because it's just an absolute deal-killer without IM support that they are used to. The IM culture overseas is just that big, that integrated, and they (along with their IM friends) don't use AOL and they don't use .Mac and they aren't going to. The IM scene overseas and it's dependence on MS Messenger and Yahoo is practically a youth culture in and of itself now and ignoring that is simply bad business for Apple at this point.
Spaces: This one looks pretty cool
Enhanced Dashboard: The only thing that really needs to be enhanced with Dashboard is widget collection organization. With the sheer number of widgets that are out now, hammering on the little arrows in the Widget Bar and watching bar after bar after bar of widgets fly by while you're searching for a particular widget that you may or may not remember the name of just isn't working. The Spaces (virtual desktop) feature may come to the rescue here if different collections of widgets can be maintained on separate desktops, but is seems like Spaces is overkill just for that. Dashboard needs it's own "Spaces" (multiple Dashboard instances) or a better way of managing large widget collections.
Enhanced Spotlight: Its all good
Enhanced iCal: Okay...what else?
More Accessible: This is actually quite good as I suspect disabled access to computers will become more of a focus as time goes on particularly with disabled or handicapped employees. So it's great that Apple is leading the charge here.
Core Animation: Another avenue to the treasure chest of Apple OS eye-candy for third-party devs, just in case Core Image wasn't floating anyone's boat
Increased 64-bit support: Which will be great whenever we see increased 64-bit applications showing up.
But the overall impression is, so what? Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think the so-called "secret" unseen, unknown features are the ones that will really matter for most users, what was shown today is by and large fluff. If Jobs says Apple isn't going to reveal some of Leopard's features for fear of MS pulling one of it's copy jobs, then they must be fairly significant features worth protecting until the last minute. So what matters with Leopard isn't what was seen today, what really matters is what wasn't seen.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:25 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
Wow, you're pulling out my deep cuts with your sig. They never did fit a G5 in a notebook, I guess that was my intention with that quote. The G4 was never a great chip. It ran hot and the only way to make it faster was to make it run hotter, Apple needed a new chip and they knew it. Because they couldn't find a producer of efficient PPC chips, they switched to Intel, and I don't think anyone saw that coming.
Sometimes, chip makers move backwards to an architecture that works. Look at Intel's latest chips, they're an evolution of the Pentium M architecture and a departure from what previously was their "best" and fastest, the Pentium 4.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 11:37 AM
You sure as hell can.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
shamino
Jul 22, 12:23 PM
Anyway, wondering if Apple will cut the prices the way the PC market dictates?? Anyone have any ideas?
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.
My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.
Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.
Apple's business model is based on high margins. I don't think this is going to change.
My guess is that they will release upgraded systems more often, and discontinue the slower systems more often, and leave the prices approximately unchanged.
Don't expect dirt-cheap Macs (aside from closeout sales to dump old stock, of course), but do expect more powerful systems to come out much more rapidly.
Now, if we could only get decent mic preamps, and everything wireless, guitar, etc, everything would be perfect.
You can get tons of great audio gear. But you're going to have to start shopping in music stores and not in computer stores. And be prepared to pay for the quality you get.
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:43 PM
My phone just happens to work in europe, but I wouldn't care if it didn't.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
Leoff
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
What's funny is that even if new MacBooks and MacBook Pros were released tomorrow with the newer Merom chip, 90% of you folks in here wouldn't notice a difference in your daily computing. You would not say "OMG, this 64 bit processing and extra .16Ghz speed is AWESOME!!! I can't BELIEVE I lived without this for so long!!!" You wouldn't even notice unless someone told you.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:28 PM
Apple may have expanded upon existing GUI elements, but it didn't invent the GUI. Very big difference there.
Interesting that you now notice the difference between the two when you started the entire discussion with your complete misunderstanding of someone already differentiating between the two...
Interesting that you now notice the difference between the two when you started the entire discussion with your complete misunderstanding of someone already differentiating between the two...
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:05 PM
The only way this iPhone or whatever it is called will be successful is if they team up with a carrier or carriers and offer promotions on it like all the other cell phone manufactures do. I am not sure about Europe or other parts of the world, but people are used to getting a decent phone for not much money either at their initial contract or every 2 years when the contract is up. Selling an unlocked phone at some outrageous price ($200-300) is not going to cut it when I can go down and get a decent phone for around $50 with rebates from the cell provider and whoever made the phone.
Now I know there are plenty of people who would buy an Apple phone no matter the price, but if you are going to compete with companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. you have to work with carriers and provide great contract prices.
The whole CDMA v. GSM debate is kind of like the PowerPC v. x86 debate.lol Actually from everything I have read CDMA is actually the newer of the 2 technologies and actually has a lot of benefits over GSM. In then end however, both work fine. I think in the US you will find CDMA has a lot better coverage if you look at the coverage maps on the providers websites. With GSM you hit a lot of dead space especially in the rural areas. CDMA pretty much covers the entire US. Now in Europe I know it is different and that GSM is the standard.
Now I know there are plenty of people who would buy an Apple phone no matter the price, but if you are going to compete with companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. you have to work with carriers and provide great contract prices.
The whole CDMA v. GSM debate is kind of like the PowerPC v. x86 debate.lol Actually from everything I have read CDMA is actually the newer of the 2 technologies and actually has a lot of benefits over GSM. In then end however, both work fine. I think in the US you will find CDMA has a lot better coverage if you look at the coverage maps on the providers websites. With GSM you hit a lot of dead space especially in the rural areas. CDMA pretty much covers the entire US. Now in Europe I know it is different and that GSM is the standard.
bedifferent
Apr 27, 08:39 AM
There's a nuclear disaster in Japan and treacherous weather throughout, people are jobless and homeless and the dollar's in the sh***er and our Supreme Court ruled that companies can give unlimited financial aid to any politician putting business interests in our government and people are worried about Apple possibly tracking them on their iDevice?
Let 'em, my life is BORING, they wouldn't be interested :p
Let 'em, my life is BORING, they wouldn't be interested :p
.jpg "princess jasmine and aladdin")
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 09:50 AM
So i'm wondering, if the standard cars are indeed copy/pasted from GT4, then what about the new standard cars they will be adding (like updated models from the past 5 years)? Obviously the ps3 can handle higher poly models, so surely they wouldn't build new models then scale them down to match gt4... That would be idiotic.
As I understand it, all of the Standard� cars are using the models from GT4 and GT PSP. The models used in those 2 games are basically the same. GT PSP had well over 800 cars itself, and came out just last year, so it has quite a few newer models. So, subtract a few from the lists of those 2 games for the cars that have been updated to Premium� status, and you could still have well over 800 Standard� cars, as they say it will have. To me, that seems like the most likely solution that they've done.
As I understand it, all of the Standard� cars are using the models from GT4 and GT PSP. The models used in those 2 games are basically the same. GT PSP had well over 800 cars itself, and came out just last year, so it has quite a few newer models. So, subtract a few from the lists of those 2 games for the cars that have been updated to Premium� status, and you could still have well over 800 Standard� cars, as they say it will have. To me, that seems like the most likely solution that they've done.
Dan==
Jul 27, 02:00 PM
The Mac name will never work! It's just too generic. And Apple must be suicidal if they keep a Core Solo in the Mini. The Core Solo will NOT be priced dropped and offers very poor value for money compared to a low-end Merom or mid-range Yonah (after price drop).
I can't say much about the name. I'm not the first to offer it. But nothing else comes to mind that seems to fit well.
For the Mini, I'd much rather see a Duo in the bottom of line unit, but let's face it, there's a lot of clamouring for the return of a sub $500 dollar unit, and a Core 2 Duo won't be in it, at least not in the next 6 months anyway. I'd personally like to see a $499 unit with a Core 2 Yonah, but suspect a Solo is all that will be affordable. For the rest of the Mini's, we should see 2MB cache Merom's. They're gonna be the same prices!
It's true, I haven't seen any price cuts in print for the Solo, but they simply can't be kept the same (when the other processors start shipping). But, true, this is an assumption.
Pretty cool, but it needs a real name, MAC won't cut it. Maybe Mac Express?
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
Thanks!
I can't figure out why it wouldn't have a 2nd slot or FW800. They're both cheap enough to add. The only problem is the 2nd slot adds some height, but not that much. This unit would be less than 5" tall. And anyway, how do you backup your CD's? What a pain to go to the HD first! Adding another slot for a HD would be great, but I think that'll be one of the differentiators with the Pro. (Hey, maybe one or the other.)
As far the price goes, why does someone always have to resist? At this price there is plenty more profit here than the Mini.
Here's what I wrote in a thread over at 123macmini.com
http://www.123macmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
However, these prices are, I think, pretty doable. They're based largely on what Apple already sells the Mini for. That cheaper Conroe processor is just about the same price as the Core Solo in the $600 Mini right now! (Well, when it was introduced, anyway.) 3.5" 160MB SATA drives are roughly the same price as 2.5" 60GB SATA drives, separate graphics are < $50, and I suspect that system slots, fans, FW800, and other interfaces wouldn't add more than $100 to the price of the system. (Think +$50 in profits over the Mini.)
That was before I included a number of things, including extra RAM, and a mouse/keyboard in the base model, and bumped the price $40. Also, the cheaper Conroe came out at $185 instead of $210 as was being considered.
I think a box like this at $999 would have $100 to $150 more profit than the Mini!
princess jasmine and aladdin
Cinderellabration Princess
princess jasmine and aladdin
I can't say much about the name. I'm not the first to offer it. But nothing else comes to mind that seems to fit well.
For the Mini, I'd much rather see a Duo in the bottom of line unit, but let's face it, there's a lot of clamouring for the return of a sub $500 dollar unit, and a Core 2 Duo won't be in it, at least not in the next 6 months anyway. I'd personally like to see a $499 unit with a Core 2 Yonah, but suspect a Solo is all that will be affordable. For the rest of the Mini's, we should see 2MB cache Merom's. They're gonna be the same prices!
It's true, I haven't seen any price cuts in print for the Solo, but they simply can't be kept the same (when the other processors start shipping). But, true, this is an assumption.
Pretty cool, but it needs a real name, MAC won't cut it. Maybe Mac Express?
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
Thanks!
I can't figure out why it wouldn't have a 2nd slot or FW800. They're both cheap enough to add. The only problem is the 2nd slot adds some height, but not that much. This unit would be less than 5" tall. And anyway, how do you backup your CD's? What a pain to go to the HD first! Adding another slot for a HD would be great, but I think that'll be one of the differentiators with the Pro. (Hey, maybe one or the other.)
As far the price goes, why does someone always have to resist? At this price there is plenty more profit here than the Mini.
Here's what I wrote in a thread over at 123macmini.com
http://www.123macmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
However, these prices are, I think, pretty doable. They're based largely on what Apple already sells the Mini for. That cheaper Conroe processor is just about the same price as the Core Solo in the $600 Mini right now! (Well, when it was introduced, anyway.) 3.5" 160MB SATA drives are roughly the same price as 2.5" 60GB SATA drives, separate graphics are < $50, and I suspect that system slots, fans, FW800, and other interfaces wouldn't add more than $100 to the price of the system. (Think +$50 in profits over the Mini.)
That was before I included a number of things, including extra RAM, and a mouse/keyboard in the base model, and bumped the price $40. Also, the cheaper Conroe came out at $185 instead of $210 as was being considered.
I think a box like this at $999 would have $100 to $150 more profit than the Mini!
FlameofAnor
Mar 31, 05:23 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
notjustjay
Apr 8, 12:13 AM
I wouldn't be surprised. The quota explanation was given already, but they might also be holding back stock of the cheaper models in order to drive more sales of the higher end ones. "Oh, you wanted the 16 gig wifi model? Sorry, all sold out. But we do have this lovely 64 gig 3G version. If you really want the iPad 2, this is your big chance... it's only a little bit more..."
That happened to me, almost, when I bought the original iPad from Best Buy here in Canada on our launch day last year. The guy almost smirked when he said, sorry, the 16 gig ones were all sold out, but they had plenty of the 64 gig models. Luckily I persisted and he managed to find one more 16 gig, the last one! How lucky was that! :rolleyes:
That happened to me, almost, when I bought the original iPad from Best Buy here in Canada on our launch day last year. The guy almost smirked when he said, sorry, the 16 gig ones were all sold out, but they had plenty of the 64 gig models. Luckily I persisted and he managed to find one more 16 gig, the last one! How lucky was that! :rolleyes:
nunes013
Mar 25, 10:34 PM
maybe they will release it in late july instead of late august like snow leopard. does anyone remember how much leopard cost. snow leopard wasnt really a new OS. just a speed bump from leopard so thats why it was $30. i just want to get an idea of what they price lion at because i heard $120 a while ago.
AwakenedLands
Mar 31, 06:46 PM
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
RichP
Sep 13, 09:33 AM
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
Personally, I still see data transfer, namely from storage media, as a huge bottleneck in performance. Unless you are doing something really CPU intensive (vid editing, rendering, others) Most of the average "wait-time" is the damn hard drive.
Personally, I still see data transfer, namely from storage media, as a huge bottleneck in performance. Unless you are doing something really CPU intensive (vid editing, rendering, others) Most of the average "wait-time" is the damn hard drive.
depperl
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
if leopard is not enough here's some more new features: Leopard-Server (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/)
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 12:56 PM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Reach9
Apr 11, 04:11 PM
Perhaps solely in the phone part of the equation. Here's the newsflash: the "smart" part of "smartphone" encompasses much more than a voice-driven contact list and actual phone calls.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
You're right, but here's where i think is the difference. Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, Navigation system, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
I'm not talking about widgets, customization, dynamic wallapers etc
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system. Plus, browsing the internet, checking mail and practically everything is much better on a bigger screen.
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
iOS on the other hand is catching up to these "smartphone" features. My old Nokia E63 had a better notification system than the iPhone, and that's pathetic.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
You're right, but here's where i think is the difference. Browsing the Internet, Calendar, Checking Mail, Listening to songs, Texting, Multitasking, Notifications, Cut-Copy-Paste, ability to open and use Office files, Navigation system, basic tools like Currency converters, To-Do lists etc. These are what i believe encompasses in a "smartphone", and here's the newsflash: Android OS meets them perfectly.
I'm not talking about widgets, customization, dynamic wallapers etc
The iPhone was late on MMS, Multitasking, Cut-Copy-Paste, and now it's going to be a notification system. Plus, browsing the internet, checking mail and practically everything is much better on a bigger screen.
I feel the App Store is just an added feature, and that's why i'd get an iPod Touch for.
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Android OS already has the "smartphone" features down, and they're just working on the bonus features such as the Android App Store.
iOS on the other hand is catching up to these "smartphone" features. My old Nokia E63 had a better notification system than the iPhone, and that's pathetic.