dr Dunkel
Apr 20, 02:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
It would have made sense if Apple would have built computers in the segment where the demand is for something more modular than the iMac but less OTT than the MP. As long as Apple is sticking both with that model and its head in the sand, it will seem strange...
It would have made sense if Apple would have built computers in the segment where the demand is for something more modular than the iMac but less OTT than the MP. As long as Apple is sticking both with that model and its head in the sand, it will seem strange...
aswitcher
Jan 12, 04:14 PM
MacBook Air
(exclusive Specs)
Has 0 Ports (just power)
Connects to "new wireless device almost like airport express..which to that you can hook up...."
dvd/cd burner
usb ports for iPods/iPhones etc
printers etc
Has slim hard drive
6-8hours battery
I cant use a device that doesn't have USB so when away from my desk I can use thumbdrives, external drives, ethernet connections, fw for timemachine when I am traveling. So for me whilst a dock may help allot my ideal machine needs a few ports else its going to be much less useful.
At a minimum I need
Power, USB, Ethernet, audio in/out.
Ideally I want
FW 400, DVI (mini or full),
And really
FW800, SATA
(exclusive Specs)
Has 0 Ports (just power)
Connects to "new wireless device almost like airport express..which to that you can hook up...."
dvd/cd burner
usb ports for iPods/iPhones etc
printers etc
Has slim hard drive
6-8hours battery
I cant use a device that doesn't have USB so when away from my desk I can use thumbdrives, external drives, ethernet connections, fw for timemachine when I am traveling. So for me whilst a dock may help allot my ideal machine needs a few ports else its going to be much less useful.
At a minimum I need
Power, USB, Ethernet, audio in/out.
Ideally I want
FW 400, DVI (mini or full),
And really
FW800, SATA
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
iEric
Nov 27, 01:31 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:
miloblithe
Sep 6, 09:30 AM
Comparing the prices of the new iMacs and the Mac mini is absurd. The killer
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
feature of the mini is its form factor. Wake me up when you can use an iMac
as a file/download server placed in your desk drawer.
Fair enough, but what about those of us who want to buy a general purpose computer? (Probably most people)
skellener
Mar 22, 07:44 PM
As long as it still sells, might as well keep making it.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 01:10 AM
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
Each eye already receives 24fps (for both 2D and 3D) but the 48fps will make the motion look less choppy and less blurry. The differences can be seen in both 2D and 3D but 3D should be more comfortable to watch at the higher frame rate (especially for long periods of time).
Lethal
Each eye already receives 24fps (for both 2D and 3D) but the 48fps will make the motion look less choppy and less blurry. The differences can be seen in both 2D and 3D but 3D should be more comfortable to watch at the higher frame rate (especially for long periods of time).
Lethal
mwayne85
Apr 19, 11:00 AM
Not expecting a huge update here other than Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt, and 6XXX series AMD graphics.
baryon
Jun 23, 07:08 AM
Okay, but I cannot live without full featured Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. Also, I can't live without extensions like Perian, applications like Transmission, Cyberduck and VLC. I don't see how those would make it into iOS, through Apple's approval system. I need custom built applications and less "official" stuff as well. I'm fine with my iPod Touch not letting me run everything I run on my Mac, but I need my computer to be able to do EVERYTHING. I'm sure Apple loves iOS and wants to deploy it everywhere they can, but I'm also sure they don't want to stop with OS X. Now Steve has said recently that PCs are like trucks and that they'll still be around but only for people who really need them. If that's the case, PCs are no longer going to be consumer devices, so they won't have the good support they have now (new features regularly, updates, etc...) So we're going to be left behind if we want to keep using a computer for what a computer really is: everything.
I love the idea of iOS but that's because it makes sense that an iPhone or iPad cannot run a conventional OS. A real desktop computer with a touch screen would have many problems such as precision. Also I can't see iOS adopting custom built drivers and applications for custom hardware and stuff like that. Yes iOS rocks for most people who only use a computer for Facebook, MSN and browsing the web. But I feel like that's totally not me, and I don't want to get left out of all the innovation. We're seeing Apple focus more and more on iOS and leaving OS X behind a bit could be one of their next moves. I don't want OS X to end up like Final Cut Pro: rarely updated and with an interface that comes from the past millennium.
There's no indication that this would be the case, but I'm sure it would work for Apple and most people.
I love the idea of iOS but that's because it makes sense that an iPhone or iPad cannot run a conventional OS. A real desktop computer with a touch screen would have many problems such as precision. Also I can't see iOS adopting custom built drivers and applications for custom hardware and stuff like that. Yes iOS rocks for most people who only use a computer for Facebook, MSN and browsing the web. But I feel like that's totally not me, and I don't want to get left out of all the innovation. We're seeing Apple focus more and more on iOS and leaving OS X behind a bit could be one of their next moves. I don't want OS X to end up like Final Cut Pro: rarely updated and with an interface that comes from the past millennium.
There's no indication that this would be the case, but I'm sure it would work for Apple and most people.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 6, 08:50 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
Yup that seems like bad news for anyone hoping C2D MacBooks this september. But I doubt there was anyone realistically expecting Merom MB this soon. But I do hope they pump out Merom MBP on 12 Sept. May be a completely new and cool design for the MBP is waiting for as next tuesday.:rolleyes:
Yup that seems like bad news for anyone hoping C2D MacBooks this september. But I doubt there was anyone realistically expecting Merom MB this soon. But I do hope they pump out Merom MBP on 12 Sept. May be a completely new and cool design for the MBP is waiting for as next tuesday.:rolleyes:
Eraserhead
Jul 18, 06:35 AM
I dunno, I could work if they streamed it. Even if they did it so you waited 15 minutes so there was loads of streamed data on your computer first (so no awful pauses) I can see myself using it a lot for even �2. You could go round with a laptop (or an iPod with WiFi ;) ) and plug it into a TV and watch a film on it, it would be good.
rhythmac
Nov 27, 04:36 PM
Stop buying things for yourself! 'Tis the season of giving, you know.
but I need so many things! Am I selfish?...well maybe a little, but don't judge!!!!
but I need so many things! Am I selfish?...well maybe a little, but don't judge!!!!
bcharna
Aug 6, 11:21 PM
I can't sleep.
MacRumors, stop making me dwell on this!!
PS, is anyone here waiting for Mac support for the Slingbox? Thats pissing me off too!
MacRumors, stop making me dwell on this!!
PS, is anyone here waiting for Mac support for the Slingbox? Thats pissing me off too!
AidenShaw
Nov 29, 08:42 PM
http://news.com.com/Intel+completes+design+of+Penryn+chip/2100-1006_3-6139487.html
Intel has taped out--or completed the design of--Penryn, a 45-nanometer chip that will be out toward the end of next year.
The company is also in the midst of making its first Penryn samples.
"They aren't out of the fab yet, but they are in the fab," said Mark Bohr, director of process technology at Intel, referring to chip factories, known as "fabs."
Intel showed off a memory chip made on the 45-nanometer process earlier this year.
The Penryn news underscores Intel's expertise in manufacturing. The company has introduced new manufacturing processes every two years. Meanwhile, competitors such as Advanced Micro Devices have had to space out these jumps. Intel started shipping chips made on the 65-nanometer process in October 2005. AMD won't ship its first 65-nano chips until next month.
______________________________________________
Disclaimer: The preceding headline exhibits excessive exuberance. In truth,
"No official details concerning the Penryn chip design were announced this time, however, according to previously published news-stories, the chip code-named Penryn is a 45nm incarnation of the dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processor for mobile computers (code-named Merom) with SSE4 technology..."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338.html
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
Intel has taped out--or completed the design of--Penryn, a 45-nanometer chip that will be out toward the end of next year.
The company is also in the midst of making its first Penryn samples.
"They aren't out of the fab yet, but they are in the fab," said Mark Bohr, director of process technology at Intel, referring to chip factories, known as "fabs."
Intel showed off a memory chip made on the 45-nanometer process earlier this year.
The Penryn news underscores Intel's expertise in manufacturing. The company has introduced new manufacturing processes every two years. Meanwhile, competitors such as Advanced Micro Devices have had to space out these jumps. Intel started shipping chips made on the 65-nanometer process in October 2005. AMD won't ship its first 65-nano chips until next month.
______________________________________________
Disclaimer: The preceding headline exhibits excessive exuberance. In truth,
"No official details concerning the Penryn chip design were announced this time, however, according to previously published news-stories, the chip code-named Penryn is a 45nm incarnation of the dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processor for mobile computers (code-named Merom) with SSE4 technology..."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338.html
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
JFreak
Jul 14, 07:15 AM
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
Otto J
May 3, 01:36 AM
So... In 6 pages of comments, _noone_ sees this as a build-up to a touch-screen imac?
ghostlines
Mar 23, 01:30 PM
I'm glad they aren't planning to discontinue this baby. I mean c'mon I still think alot of people use it. The more gigs the better, all your music all the time, anywhere. They just need to add bluetooth to it, I know it has space for a decent battery, so bluetooth wouldn't drain it too fast at all.
spencers
Nov 26, 07:11 PM
I just bought a mazda 3 to on Monday, I love it, its fun to drive to.
To where?
To where?
Multimedia
Nov 16, 01:43 PM
The bandwidth of DIMMs doesn't really change with their capacity (assuming their timings are the same). It is the number of active channels that gives you the increase in memory bandwidth.
I believe the memory controller will interleave the lower 512MB (since you have a branch populated with 512MB) of each DIMM resulting in full bandwidth access (4 channels) to that range of memory (512 x 4 = 2 GB) with the remainder of the 2 GB DIMMs (the remaining 3 GB) only getting the benefit of a single branch (two channels).
Personally I wouldn't purchase 2 GB DIMMs given their extra cost in relation to two 1 GB DIMMs... in other words use more of the memory slots you have ... unless you really want to leave room to add more RAM later.In this class of RAM the 2GB sticks are now less than two 1GB sticks. So I don't see why buying only 1GB sticks would be advisable any more.
AV was saying that the 512 sticks run half as fast as 1 and 2GB sticks. Is that not correct or did I misunderstand what he meant?
...you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price.It already is the lowest.An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.I agree with you 100%. Apple Mac Pro is already the lowest priced Dual Woodcrest product on the market. Dell costs a lot more. So why would you expect Clovertown to impact the price of the existing line that is already at a rock bottom price Alpinism? :confused: :eek:Thats the beauty of going Intel, you dont drop the price ? DELL, HP and the other competitors WILL.Apple started lowest and none of the other vendors followed so your premise is not turning out to be true in the real world. :rolleyes:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?I don't rip DVDs. I rip DVD Images created with Toast from EyeTV broadcast recordings. So it's not an extra step. If you mean why not export direct to mp4 from EyeTV the answer is because they look like C**p. You want a really good looking mp4 file, Handbrake is the only way to go IMHO. And the maximum quality Toast encode to DVD image is also the best way to provide Handbrake with a superior master to rip from.
Anyway that's why what I use is ready for an 8-core Mac Pro now.
I believe the memory controller will interleave the lower 512MB (since you have a branch populated with 512MB) of each DIMM resulting in full bandwidth access (4 channels) to that range of memory (512 x 4 = 2 GB) with the remainder of the 2 GB DIMMs (the remaining 3 GB) only getting the benefit of a single branch (two channels).
Personally I wouldn't purchase 2 GB DIMMs given their extra cost in relation to two 1 GB DIMMs... in other words use more of the memory slots you have ... unless you really want to leave room to add more RAM later.In this class of RAM the 2GB sticks are now less than two 1GB sticks. So I don't see why buying only 1GB sticks would be advisable any more.
AV was saying that the 512 sticks run half as fast as 1 and 2GB sticks. Is that not correct or did I misunderstand what he meant?
...you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price.It already is the lowest.An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.I agree with you 100%. Apple Mac Pro is already the lowest priced Dual Woodcrest product on the market. Dell costs a lot more. So why would you expect Clovertown to impact the price of the existing line that is already at a rock bottom price Alpinism? :confused: :eek:Thats the beauty of going Intel, you dont drop the price ? DELL, HP and the other competitors WILL.Apple started lowest and none of the other vendors followed so your premise is not turning out to be true in the real world. :rolleyes:
To rip DVD's. Why add additional, unnecessary steps?I don't rip DVDs. I rip DVD Images created with Toast from EyeTV broadcast recordings. So it's not an extra step. If you mean why not export direct to mp4 from EyeTV the answer is because they look like C**p. You want a really good looking mp4 file, Handbrake is the only way to go IMHO. And the maximum quality Toast encode to DVD image is also the best way to provide Handbrake with a superior master to rip from.
Anyway that's why what I use is ready for an 8-core Mac Pro now.
m2uk
Sep 1, 11:57 AM
Whatever, PLEASE PLEASE more than 2gb limit ! I am waiting for a new Imac (have my 20" intel Imac from my studio room presently in my office after selling my G5 and have been holding on for the post WWDC launch window... really don't want to wait until net year and the PowerMac replacements will be too noisy.
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 6, 08:42 PM
Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista
Nice!
Nice!
theBigD23
May 2, 07:01 PM
I feel the same way. I just want to delete an app that delete all of the junk that comes with it. Just moving it to e trash does not do that. Some programs have an uninstall and some don't. That's more confusing for people.
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
Porco
Apr 19, 04:55 PM
I've been putting a family member off buying an iMac for months in order to wait for the new ones, I hope the updates are very soon.
dongmin
Jan 13, 05:56 PM
Yeah I guess there are a lot of problems with this.
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/