asears08
Mar 24, 08:45 PM
Oh man, 27" iMac + Sandy Bridge + AMD 6970
I Cant wait.
I Cant wait.
torn
Oct 2, 10:29 AM
Actually I kind of like my gel case. It perfectly fits and makes the back look great. I intended to wait for the belkin's clear hard case to come out, but now I'm going to order the full set of this gel case and it's still cheaper.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
Multimedia
Aug 25, 11:25 AM
Conroe is cooler than G5, which used the same case.Not because they need to now, but because Apple changes enclosures every few years to keep the line looking new and improved like it is on the inside. Core 2 calls for such a design refresh to further distinguish the new from the old and to have thermal envelope specs capable of supporting Kentsfield 4 cores inside next year. ;)
MattG
Nov 28, 12:05 PM
Heh.
Suck it, Microsoft :cool:
Do you have anything to support that MS lost billions on the xbox, I heard it was more like they broke even...
I watched a television show on the history of video games a couple of weeks ago. I forget what channel it was on...History or Discovery or something like that, but I specifically remember them saying that Microsoft lost a lot of money on the xbox, but that they didn't care...they just wanted to get their foot in the door.
I think it was this show:
http://games.ign.com/articles/744/744878p1.html
Suck it, Microsoft :cool:
Do you have anything to support that MS lost billions on the xbox, I heard it was more like they broke even...
I watched a television show on the history of video games a couple of weeks ago. I forget what channel it was on...History or Discovery or something like that, but I specifically remember them saying that Microsoft lost a lot of money on the xbox, but that they didn't care...they just wanted to get their foot in the door.
I think it was this show:
http://games.ign.com/articles/744/744878p1.html
bokdol
Nov 28, 09:53 AM
one of the key differences between the xbox and zune. is that microsoft only had to contend with 2 other players in the video game indistry. the ipod maybe top. but there are hundred of other companies to battle first just to reach second place. and also phone companies. spending money maynot help them like in the case of the xbox.
lyzardking
May 8, 11:44 AM
wait, so are you running a3's on your 09s? or bigadv units?
also, congrats to whiterabbit for 15 million points!
a3's on the '08
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
also, congrats to whiterabbit for 15 million points!
a3's on the '08
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
AppliedVisual
Nov 17, 12:37 PM
It's not the future... these kind of over-architected solutions never win. I predict CPUs, memory and memory controllers will become more tightly integrated over time, not less. FB-DIMM will be gone is a few years.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
FB-DIMMs aren't going to disappear anytime soon -- not in the next few years anyway. There currently is nothing better or more reliable for installing 16GB or more in a system without dividing up RAM into multiple, independent banks and controllers, often on a per-CPU base (as is done on current NUMA, AMD Opteron and other offerings from Sun, IBM, etc..).
Probably won't see FB-DIMM style RAM on systems like the iMac anytime soon, no need for it. But for now, it's what makes the most sense for Mac Pro and Xserve.
IMO, what Apple really needs is a system between the Mac Pro and iMac. A smaller tower or cube style system with a single Kentsfield or Clovertown CPU with 2 or 3 PCI-E slots, two HDD bays, optical bay and using cheaper, more conventional RAM - like up to 8GB DDR2. Apple is ignoring an entire segment of the market and it seems like they're trying to use the small difference in price between a maxed-out 24" iMac and a relatively low-end Mac Pro as justification for nothing in the middle.
aafuss1
Sep 6, 10:10 PM
Is the 160GB BTO HD perpendicular?
Vulpinemac
Apr 19, 01:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Good grief, man! We just had an MBA refresh a couple months ago. Give it a break!
Personally, I'm waiting for the next major iMac update that puts it into an all new chassis.
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
Good grief, man! We just had an MBA refresh a couple months ago. Give it a break!
Personally, I'm waiting for the next major iMac update that puts it into an all new chassis.
ezekielrage_99
Oct 23, 09:58 AM
So Macbooks next tuesday :confused:
Peace
Jan 11, 07:52 PM
I'm sorry but I don't believe the Macbook Air at all..Sounds too weird.
As I've said in other threads it'll be the Macbook "lite" or Macbook "Light"
As I've said in other threads it'll be the Macbook "lite" or Macbook "Light"
charlituna
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
I only talked to the guy for about one minute and was told that Apple was looking into this so I am guessing that more than 10 people have an issue.
They look into everything for all new products, standard practice. That's why they encourage folks to return 'bad' units those first few weeks. They call it Early Field Failure Analysis
They look into everything for all new products, standard practice. That's why they encourage folks to return 'bad' units those first few weeks. They call it Early Field Failure Analysis
r.j.s
Jan 2, 07:24 PM
You call that snow? PFFT. lol
We don't get a whole lot here, and I lived in Texas and Arizona for the past 8 years, but I'm originally from northern PA, so I grew up with Lake Effect snow.
We don't get a whole lot here, and I lived in Texas and Arizona for the past 8 years, but I'm originally from northern PA, so I grew up with Lake Effect snow.
antmarobel
Mar 31, 11:49 AM
Ok folks!!! Now try to manage your favorites in "Favorites Bar"!!! Try to change their places and see what happen!!! Pure madness!!!:D:D
NAG
Jan 12, 04:41 PM
just because they used Air in their banner doesn't mean its called MacBook Air.. Apple is not stupid.. its all about slim and light..
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
Not Found
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
Not Found
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
kalisphoenix
Jul 20, 01:42 AM
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.
Vista will sell more copies in its first two weeks than Leopard in its first year. As several hundred thousand years of humanity have demonstrated, rhyme and reason matters little.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
....and they still are. The anti-Apple and anti-Linux advertising games are defense, not offense.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
No doubt, but I don't see businesses exactly fleeing in droves.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Sun's ailments are a lot more complicated than that, as are SGI's. Most of their problem is that their workstation prices make Apple's seem like bargain-bin deals.
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
Vista will sell more copies in its first two weeks than Leopard in its first year. As several hundred thousand years of humanity have demonstrated, rhyme and reason matters little.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
....and they still are. The anti-Apple and anti-Linux advertising games are defense, not offense.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
No doubt, but I don't see businesses exactly fleeing in droves.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Sun's ailments are a lot more complicated than that, as are SGI's. Most of their problem is that their workstation prices make Apple's seem like bargain-bin deals.
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
boncellis
Jul 18, 02:51 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. The only way I see this really becoming big is if Apple releases a Mac Mini media center. By so doing, Apple will catch a huge market of people who say, "What do you want to watch tonight?" How many times have you been in this situation. You've looked at all your movies, which you've seen at least three times each, and decide that you don't have anything you want to watch. Would if, from your remote, you had a whole movie store IN YOUR HOME? That's right. Who needs to go to Blockbuster or wait for NetFlix. Just point, click, and...hello, movie. You get to keep it for a few days.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.
I'm excited to see it!
Right. Just like that super successful venture Moviebeam.
mduser63
Jul 13, 10:27 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
Yes, Blu-Ray burners for computers are already available from Pioneer and a few other companies.
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
Yes, Blu-Ray burners for computers are already available from Pioneer and a few other companies.
JackAxe
Mar 26, 01:30 AM
Sure it might be lame and inferior in your taste, but can you take your toys with you? Yeah. That's the power with the iPad.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
OH noooos, you gots me theres. ;) It's not exactly easy to takes 'some' of me toys with me, but as a trade off I get an absolutely superior experience on all fronts. There are NO compromises to my controls. I get top notch visuals now that are much better than what can be done on dated consoles like the PS3 and 360, and at a much higher frame rate.
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
OH noooos, you gots me theres. ;) It's not exactly easy to takes 'some' of me toys with me, but as a trade off I get an absolutely superior experience on all fronts. There are NO compromises to my controls. I get top notch visuals now that are much better than what can be done on dated consoles like the PS3 and 360, and at a much higher frame rate.
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
Lepton
Jul 18, 04:52 PM
Apple wants to sell movies for $9.99, the studios say no, because they are greedy. Let's rent them for (I'll guess) $1.99 per view! Or (I'll guess) unlimited movies for $19.99 per month! That way, we get big bucks!
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
dr Dunkel
Apr 19, 03:06 PM
...and a proper graphics card to go with that 2560x1440 screen.
frankie
Sep 1, 03:42 PM
Many of the people on this thread are too new to remember the Performa fiascos of the early 90's. More than anything, Steve simplified the computer product line into 4 distinct quadrants. The only aberration to this is the Mac Mini.
Many of the people who bring up the Performa era are failing to remember that there were typically twenty or more Mac models at any given time. 20 is too many. 4 is too few. Many of us would be much happier if Apple offered 6-8 models (specifically, the xMac).
Many of the people who bring up the Performa era are failing to remember that there were typically twenty or more Mac models at any given time. 20 is too many. 4 is too few. Many of us would be much happier if Apple offered 6-8 models (specifically, the xMac).
timerollson
Nov 27, 05:04 PM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5212127859_f4913c6267.jpg
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
...to make macaroni and cheese. It's currently in the oven. :o
Mike84
Apr 26, 01:30 PM
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
You may be right about the general population not having used the term "App" until Apple did, but you are wrong in your argument that they will win this case. First off, "App" is short for "application" and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Since "App" is derived from "Application," which is a generic term, Apple cannot claim it and trademark it. Furthermore, just because they add "store" to that does not mean it is not generic. Both "App" and "Store" are generic terms. The way Apple used the term was in a very generic way.
You cannot make a generic term into a unique term. Once it is generic it is lost to the public at large. That is pretty basic trademark law there. Apple will lose this one.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
You may be right about the general population not having used the term "App" until Apple did, but you are wrong in your argument that they will win this case. First off, "App" is short for "application" and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Since "App" is derived from "Application," which is a generic term, Apple cannot claim it and trademark it. Furthermore, just because they add "store" to that does not mean it is not generic. Both "App" and "Store" are generic terms. The way Apple used the term was in a very generic way.
You cannot make a generic term into a unique term. Once it is generic it is lost to the public at large. That is pretty basic trademark law there. Apple will lose this one.