Willis
Aug 6, 09:08 PM
Haha, I love the digs at Vista. Vista's been getting so much bad press recently this is fantastic. They should simply have this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ) video on repeat on screens throughout the event!!
hahah i was just watching that. but it was the shorter version.
hahah i was just watching that. but it was the shorter version.
EagerDragon
Nov 28, 11:42 AM
Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
BRLawyer
Apr 19, 03:29 PM
That's what separates the 'boys' from the 'men'. We are the hardcore bunch here-we don't mess around (unlike the kids playing at the other side of the MR sandbox).
;)
Couldn't have said it better :D PC/Winblows/Droided users, steer clear..!
;)
Couldn't have said it better :D PC/Winblows/Droided users, steer clear..!
MacinDoc
Oct 23, 08:03 PM
if you are gonna wait - macworld 07 will be the big update.
...or that may come when Santa Rosa is introduced, after which the chipset will be able to address more than 3.2 GB of physical RAM, and may have better support for 64 bit APIs...
...or that may come when Santa Rosa is introduced, after which the chipset will be able to address more than 3.2 GB of physical RAM, and may have better support for 64 bit APIs...
cwerdna
Dec 5, 01:55 AM
According to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6140649.html "SanDisk tied Apple Computer, with 39 percent of all MP3 players sold for the week, but the similarities end there. iPods led all manufacturers with 66 percent of dollars spent in the category, while SanDisk had 18 percent...
Those figures do not include iPods sold directly from Apple, which does not release sales figures from Apple.com or Apple stores...
Microsoft's much-ballyhooed MP3 player, the Zune, captured 2.1 percent of units sold, tying with Disney and coming in behind Apple, SanDisk, Creative and Memorex."
Those figures do not include iPods sold directly from Apple, which does not release sales figures from Apple.com or Apple stores...
Microsoft's much-ballyhooed MP3 player, the Zune, captured 2.1 percent of units sold, tying with Disney and coming in behind Apple, SanDisk, Creative and Memorex."
evoluzione
Aug 6, 09:27 PM
anyone have any clues to whether the Apple retail stores are goig to be showing the keynote???
Twizz91
Mar 22, 04:12 PM
iPod Classic 7G
- Retina display for stunning clickwheel-game-visuals
- Airplay
- 220 GB
- Thunderbolt to fill up that 220 GB in 2 sec
- bluetooth to stream music through your ipad.
- 4mm thin
- same 36 hour battery
Who's with me :D:apple:
- Retina display for stunning clickwheel-game-visuals
- Airplay
- 220 GB
- Thunderbolt to fill up that 220 GB in 2 sec
- bluetooth to stream music through your ipad.
- 4mm thin
- same 36 hour battery
Who's with me :D:apple:
isgoed
Nov 27, 01:35 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:<= So right.
And 17" widescreen?? :confused: That is just small. That is about the samy height as my 1996 performa's 14" screen.
No, but no thanks.
And apple just can't compete with other vendors when you consider the general price-point of these things.
And 17" widescreen?? :confused: That is just small. That is about the samy height as my 1996 performa's 14" screen.
No, but no thanks.
And apple just can't compete with other vendors when you consider the general price-point of these things.
MCIowaRulz
Apr 21, 01:47 PM
SNIP
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
SNIP
That is the one I'll be getting. Why an i3 SB and not an i7 SB? I don't see Apple using an i3 in anything
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
SNIP
That is the one I'll be getting. Why an i3 SB and not an i7 SB? I don't see Apple using an i3 in anything
jeznav
Mar 31, 05:07 PM
Can anyone comment on under the hood performance improvements? CPU and RAM usage at idle?
Preview 1 raped my Air
I get 5% CPU usage on idle and 880MB ram usage on fresh boot.
Preview 1 raped my Air
I get 5% CPU usage on idle and 880MB ram usage on fresh boot.
slicecom
Sep 14, 08:56 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
I clicked on this story on the top left of the main page.
I clicked on this story on the top left of the main page.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 1, 01:23 PM
I'm game. My Last generation iMac G5 is a dog compared to my MacBook on most things (adobe aside).
23" would make me order that day. Hopefully they can ship same day as well.
23" would make me order that day. Hopefully they can ship same day as well.
benjayman2
Feb 28, 01:57 PM
First attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6433/img0390ko.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/i/img0390ko.jpg/)
Gave up and started taking pics of parts of our new room.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3861/img0392y.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/img0392y.jpg/)
Digital and Analog entertainment
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4808/img0394m.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0394m.jpg/)
Second attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9025/img0396ki.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/img0396ki.jpg/)
Pic from the window bay.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1438/img0398p.jpg (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/img0398p.jpg/)
The only pic that I thought turned out decent.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1701/img0386of.jpg
Hardware in the sig
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6433/img0390ko.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/i/img0390ko.jpg/)
Gave up and started taking pics of parts of our new room.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3861/img0392y.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/img0392y.jpg/)
Digital and Analog entertainment
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4808/img0394m.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0394m.jpg/)
Second attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9025/img0396ki.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/img0396ki.jpg/)
Pic from the window bay.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1438/img0398p.jpg (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/img0398p.jpg/)
The only pic that I thought turned out decent.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1701/img0386of.jpg
Hardware in the sig
Stella
Jun 23, 11:42 AM
This doesn't sound like Apple at all. I call shenanigans.
And HP Touchsmart sucks (to me).
Agreed - Apple just don't implement features 'because they can'. There has to be a benefit to the user for adding touch screens on a desktop. Apple generally don't do gimmicks.
Perhaps there's a new iMac in the pipeline, redesigned to take advantage of touch screen interface?
And HP Touchsmart sucks (to me).
Agreed - Apple just don't implement features 'because they can'. There has to be a benefit to the user for adding touch screens on a desktop. Apple generally don't do gimmicks.
Perhaps there's a new iMac in the pipeline, redesigned to take advantage of touch screen interface?
p0intblank
Aug 24, 06:45 PM
New Mac minis you say? Bring 'em on! :D I love those little guys.
ssk2
Apr 3, 12:59 PM
You do realize that the Playbook is pure, 100%, no-money-back, spun-glass vaporware...right?
Yeah of course... :rolleyes:
Why do you feel the need to bash other people's choices?
Yeah of course... :rolleyes:
Why do you feel the need to bash other people's choices?
Yakuza
Nov 24, 09:21 AM
Even more awesome is that's the brainchild of Dan Akroyd.
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
balamw
Sep 6, 06:27 PM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
What's stopping you from doing that now?
I know I have all of my iTMS video backed up to data DVDs...
I know I won't be spending $10-$15 for anything less than DVD quality though, so I hope there's either a rental model or at least 480p.
B
What's stopping you from doing that now?
I know I have all of my iTMS video backed up to data DVDs...
I know I won't be spending $10-$15 for anything less than DVD quality though, so I hope there's either a rental model or at least 480p.
B
alfagta
Apr 1, 04:16 PM
Faster? Not so sure. More stable? Definitely. All of my main bugs have been fixed aside from the full screen apps on dual screens.
So I guess we won�t see any new features� Apple is busy polishing what we�ve got now�:/
So I guess we won�t see any new features� Apple is busy polishing what we�ve got now�:/
brepublican
Aug 16, 08:36 AM
So what else is new? We all know its coming...
BrianMojo
Jul 19, 04:54 PM
Wow, he basically just revealed they're working on an iPhone...
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
Eidorian
Aug 25, 09:11 AM
Merom thread, etc...
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.