MacSA
Aug 24, 05:59 PM
Finally some Mac Mini rumours :D ..... lets hope this turns out to be correct. I wonder what specs we'll see in the next update, Surley no more Core Solo? :eek:
The article mentions Core 2 Duo, but I bet they stick with Core Duo. everything else will be the same.
The article mentions Core 2 Duo, but I bet they stick with Core Duo. everything else will be the same.
strabes
Apr 2, 07:15 PM
"Technology gets out of the way"
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
That's why I got a Mac/iPhone in the first place. Get out of my way, Windows/Android!
ssteve
Sep 6, 05:38 PM
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.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
goobot
May 2, 06:58 PM
Great news, i just wish they would scan my apps and link them to the app store if i downloaded else where, i mean at least for free apps :(
ATG
Sep 7, 12:48 PM
To be honest I don't care about movies�
GET THE TV STORE IN THE UK ALREADY!!!! :mad:
GET THE TV STORE IN THE UK ALREADY!!!! :mad:
snebes
Apr 19, 04:37 PM
Nothing mind-blowing there...but forget about Lion, it's coming later in June.
No, its coming in the "Summer". Expect it in August. Be surprised if it is early.
No, its coming in the "Summer". Expect it in August. Be surprised if it is early.
ddrueckhammer
Sep 6, 08:39 PM
Renting would never fly. It's far too easy to just burn the movie to DVD if it's already in digital format. The movie executives would flip. It would take some impressive coding to prevent users from doing this, and even then... somebody will figure out a way around it.
So, no. I don't think any movie corporation will allow digital movie rentals.
-Matt
It is already far to easy for me to get the $9.99 per month Netflix account and burn every disk that I get in the mail. Also, it is very easy for me to download HD quality movies from Bit Torrent any old time I please. I don't do it because I am honest but I don't think it is right for the movie industry to not offer a viable alternative for electronic downloads as well. (and no I don't think that "Movielink" is a viable alternative) The ability to pirate things from the iTMS is no greater than any other form of distribution IMO.
Also, I'm sorry but I guess I just can't relate to people who still don't have broadband. I got it in 1998 for Pete's sake and I have seen videos of people using broadband in internet cafes in Afganistan...I just got 15Mbps Verizon Fios!!!! I say bring on the high definition rentals for $5 a piece. Then I will buy them for $15 if they are good...
So, no. I don't think any movie corporation will allow digital movie rentals.
-Matt
It is already far to easy for me to get the $9.99 per month Netflix account and burn every disk that I get in the mail. Also, it is very easy for me to download HD quality movies from Bit Torrent any old time I please. I don't do it because I am honest but I don't think it is right for the movie industry to not offer a viable alternative for electronic downloads as well. (and no I don't think that "Movielink" is a viable alternative) The ability to pirate things from the iTMS is no greater than any other form of distribution IMO.
Also, I'm sorry but I guess I just can't relate to people who still don't have broadband. I got it in 1998 for Pete's sake and I have seen videos of people using broadband in internet cafes in Afganistan...I just got 15Mbps Verizon Fios!!!! I say bring on the high definition rentals for $5 a piece. Then I will buy them for $15 if they are good...
MacsAttack
Nov 16, 03:40 PM
I'm thinking about my future 8 core Macpro:
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?
thx !
1. Yes. Lots more heat. Also the PSU may not be sufficient to drive the CPUs, memory, video card. two optical drives, four hard disks, all the gizmos on the main board etc... Effectivly Intel fixed the problem with their CPUs being power hungry heat monsters with the Core 2 Duo - and then they made exactly the same mistake by creating a power hungry heat monster with their Core 2 Quads... All just to beat AMD to the "Quad Core"
2. My guess (just a guess mind) is Feb-March next year.
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?
thx !
1. Yes. Lots more heat. Also the PSU may not be sufficient to drive the CPUs, memory, video card. two optical drives, four hard disks, all the gizmos on the main board etc... Effectivly Intel fixed the problem with their CPUs being power hungry heat monsters with the Core 2 Duo - and then they made exactly the same mistake by creating a power hungry heat monster with their Core 2 Quads... All just to beat AMD to the "Quad Core"
2. My guess (just a guess mind) is Feb-March next year.
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
Genetheninja
Apr 26, 04:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
I agree!!
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
I agree!!
yac_moda
Jul 19, 06:56 PM
So here are the plans for the future that I passed on to Apple that will make market share GO THROUGH THE ROOF :eek: :eek: :eek:
First priority: Update Xcode to cross compile -- MacsWin.
P2: Make a hands free iPod, voice control, voice feedback, a big screen for podcast video, communications integration or support. Demonstrate secure servers for podcasts.
cheryl cole 2011 calendar
cheryl-cole-calendar
Cheryl Cole Calendar 2011:
2011 calendar. Cheryl Cole
Cheryl Cole Calendar 2011
cheryl cole 2011 calendar
Cheryl+cole+2011+calendar
Cheryl+cole+2011+calendar+
First priority: Update Xcode to cross compile -- MacsWin.
P2: Make a hands free iPod, voice control, voice feedback, a big screen for podcast video, communications integration or support. Demonstrate secure servers for podcasts.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 07:51 PM
Why is it necessary to keep your location a secret? What are Google and Apple going to do to you? What *exactly* and *specifically* is there to be afraid of?
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
What, are you worried that Apple and Google saw you shop at Target? LOL
I am more interested in knowing what good or purpose this is even been added for?
plus unencrypted is a major privacy concern ... just of the top of my mind, I can see where someone's house could be broken into by tracking the owners whereabouts.
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
What, are you worried that Apple and Google saw you shop at Target? LOL
I am more interested in knowing what good or purpose this is even been added for?
plus unencrypted is a major privacy concern ... just of the top of my mind, I can see where someone's house could be broken into by tracking the owners whereabouts.
GekiRed
Oct 2, 02:06 PM
I got a Gear4 protective shell for the iPod Touch that I'm waiting to be delivered by my friend in the US today from John Lewis in Liverpool as the Apple Store which is a few seconds walk away didn't have any 4G accessories in stock!
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
dopey220
Mar 22, 09:15 PM
What is there to update on the classic besides capacity?
twoodcc
Feb 23, 08:33 PM
I'm not going to go to all that trouble, VM's seem like kind of a pain.
VMs really aren't that bad. it's worth it. with just 1 gpu and and VM, i'm getting around 25k ppd. with 2 gpu, you'd get over 30kppd.
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
oh. which motherboard do you have? i've had a little trouble with mine, i'm stuck at 3.7 ghz (still not bad).
This (http://www.overclockers.com/3-step-guide-overclock-core-i3-i5-i7/) guide might help you some
VMs really aren't that bad. it's worth it. with just 1 gpu and and VM, i'm getting around 25k ppd. with 2 gpu, you'd get over 30kppd.
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
oh. which motherboard do you have? i've had a little trouble with mine, i'm stuck at 3.7 ghz (still not bad).
This (http://www.overclockers.com/3-step-guide-overclock-core-i3-i5-i7/) guide might help you some
pudrums
Nov 28, 08:06 AM
Custom-made gloves in black leather with cream-colored stitchings. I'll post a pic when I get them.
Phishin' it
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
princealfie
Nov 30, 10:49 AM
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
wmmk
Nov 27, 05:30 PM
I hope it happens. This would not only be great for Mac Mini buyers, but also laptop owners. We already have 13-17 inches of screen real estate, so 17 more sounds just about perfect! I just hope there'd be a non iSight option so that laptop users wouldn't be paying a premium for something they already paid for.
Multimedia
Nov 18, 11:04 AM
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
macidiot
Jul 19, 03:43 PM
What, the analysts weren't even close? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
vouder17
Aug 16, 07:26 AM
Digitimes = lies!
pkson
May 3, 04:07 AM
It seems like any time there's even a slight implication of any software being tuned to be easier to use, there's a barrage of negative comments lamenting how it's been "watered down."
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
No comments:
Post a Comment