DakotaGuy
Aug 4, 11:54 AM
You are the perfect consumer. "Must ... have ... bright ... shiny ... new .... thing", whether you need it or not. So what if apple comes out with a new computer every 6 months? If the one you have does what you need it to - why do you care? If your self-worth is tied up in having the latest computer, you just need therapy. And please don't blame Apple for your debt situation.
I never said that I WAS going to buy one and I probably won't...I usually run a computer 3-4 years, except for my iMac G5 which turned out to be a lemon and that is why I have my Intel one now.
I never said that I WAS going to buy one and I probably won't...I usually run a computer 3-4 years, except for my iMac G5 which turned out to be a lemon and that is why I have my Intel one now.
lilcosco08
Apr 7, 04:36 PM
They should've left the bleeding screens to RIM :p
buddyguyman
Apr 26, 04:38 PM
Does this really suprise anyone? There's only 1 current gen iphone available on 2 carriers in the US, whearas there's at least a dozen current Android phones on just about every carrier (even prepaids like Virgin Mobile).
edit: tl;dr more than first couple pages, and now I see this sentiment is expressed by others.
edit: tl;dr more than first couple pages, and now I see this sentiment is expressed by others.
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 05:06 PM
The galaxy tab looks different to the phone 3gs from my experience with it.
It is lacking a chrome bezel & the sides are flattened, black matte plastic and lacks a physical "home" button.
They are similar but far from identical.
If only I had a white Galaxy Tab and a white iPhone 3GS, I'd lay them face down next to each other and take a pic so you could see just how "identical" they really are.
But the non-Apple world is used to derivative design (or just blind to it): behold Microsoft's white Dell Optiplex, the Xbox 360:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2006/03/360_vs_dell.jpg
It is lacking a chrome bezel & the sides are flattened, black matte plastic and lacks a physical "home" button.
They are similar but far from identical.
If only I had a white Galaxy Tab and a white iPhone 3GS, I'd lay them face down next to each other and take a pic so you could see just how "identical" they really are.
But the non-Apple world is used to derivative design (or just blind to it): behold Microsoft's white Dell Optiplex, the Xbox 360:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2006/03/360_vs_dell.jpg
Benjy91
Mar 27, 05:56 AM
Going to be fun on my 500MB data limit.
MattInOz
Nov 27, 06:28 PM
The original article here is based on this smarthouse article, and has a link to it :) So unfortunately, the plot stays the same :)
What the hell do any of us know :). Interesting to speculate though.
I'll have to ask my partner about the graphics stuff - she's a high end graphic designer and a painter. My first thought is "the touch screen can't mimic her hand tools"... I figure that the accuracy of where she's touching the screen, the pressure she's exerting etc, will not be enough for real work
Yep a normal touch screen is limited, but then agian Apple have that patent application for a screen with camera pixels interlaced with normal pixels. If they have a screen close to production then a touch screen based on this would not only to do multi-touch control but could see the shape of the tool on the screen. Instead of using pressure to guess the shape the tool has made.
Then again that just makes for another missing piece of the tech puzzle to make a device like this work well.
There seems to be a couple of tech levels for such a device leading to the whole is it a iPod / PDA / laptop replacement. On the plus side i think most people given a quality device would prefer something touch based, pens brushes what ever they feel like.
I think we'll see a new family of devices rolled out over a couple of years as the tech comes online. Much the same way the iPod grew.
What the hell do any of us know :). Interesting to speculate though.
I'll have to ask my partner about the graphics stuff - she's a high end graphic designer and a painter. My first thought is "the touch screen can't mimic her hand tools"... I figure that the accuracy of where she's touching the screen, the pressure she's exerting etc, will not be enough for real work
Yep a normal touch screen is limited, but then agian Apple have that patent application for a screen with camera pixels interlaced with normal pixels. If they have a screen close to production then a touch screen based on this would not only to do multi-touch control but could see the shape of the tool on the screen. Instead of using pressure to guess the shape the tool has made.
Then again that just makes for another missing piece of the tech puzzle to make a device like this work well.
There seems to be a couple of tech levels for such a device leading to the whole is it a iPod / PDA / laptop replacement. On the plus side i think most people given a quality device would prefer something touch based, pens brushes what ever they feel like.
I think we'll see a new family of devices rolled out over a couple of years as the tech comes online. Much the same way the iPod grew.
xionxiox
Apr 26, 02:08 PM
Who cares? I thought this was macrumors not android news...
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
Jvhowube
Aug 11, 09:40 PM
I'm sure many people have asked this throughout the thread already, but is it worth it for me, if I've been waiting all summer, to continue waiting possibly into the start of school (I'm a freshman entering college) for the release of Merom in MB/MBP? My classes start Sept. 11th, but I don't know how long I'd survive without a computer.
Do you guys foresee the release of Merom before that date?:confused:
Do you guys foresee the release of Merom before that date?:confused:
balamw
Apr 9, 09:15 PM
Tastes great. (who's with me):p
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
doubleusn
Mar 28, 09:45 AM
Maybe not at WWDC, but I don't see them waiting till Fall to put out new iPhone hardware, hold iOS5 till then, maybe, but not new hardware.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
xUKHCx
May 5, 06:10 AM
The only imperial we use legally are on the roads, Miles and by motorway exits are in yards!!!
Basically they need to switch the road system to Km's instead of stupid Miles.
It is happening, these signs are metric rather than imperial.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/images/Driver_Location_Sign_138.jpg
So when have the odd situation of having both metric and imperial on the motorways. For those not from the UK these are location markers (http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/14730.aspx) so you can tell the emergency services your location.
While they aren't really for general public use it does help people get used to how far a kilometer is and will ultimately add the transition.
Basically they need to switch the road system to Km's instead of stupid Miles.
It is happening, these signs are metric rather than imperial.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/images/Driver_Location_Sign_138.jpg
So when have the odd situation of having both metric and imperial on the motorways. For those not from the UK these are location markers (http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/14730.aspx) so you can tell the emergency services your location.
While they aren't really for general public use it does help people get used to how far a kilometer is and will ultimately add the transition.
dj2mc
Nov 28, 12:51 AM
awful program
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
TBH, probably wasn't the AV.. when you dual boot there are so many bugs that go on w/ OSX. I never dual boot anymore because it would always lock my Mac up..
I saw a lady today at the Apple Store, and goes to the Genius Bar.. and the first thing she says "Hi, I am having troubles with my iMac, I dual booted through Boot Camp w/ Windows 7, and it crashed my Mac." I LOL'd and the genius's confirmed it was the cause of dual boot. I don't trust it... not one bit.
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
TBH, probably wasn't the AV.. when you dual boot there are so many bugs that go on w/ OSX. I never dual boot anymore because it would always lock my Mac up..
I saw a lady today at the Apple Store, and goes to the Genius Bar.. and the first thing she says "Hi, I am having troubles with my iMac, I dual booted through Boot Camp w/ Windows 7, and it crashed my Mac." I LOL'd and the genius's confirmed it was the cause of dual boot. I don't trust it... not one bit.
Cougarcat
Apr 23, 04:43 PM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ?
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:02 PM
No they didn’t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn’t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
Apple can’t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Fact is that Nintendo can still sue you for selling Nintendo games without their permission. But jailbreakers can't be sued by Apple.
So what's the big difference? It's a very fine line from here to there. A lack of money going to the people who figure out these jailbreak softwares is a big part of it.
Adding that kind of money to the mix just seems dangerous to me. Makes the difference between Apple and Nintendo seem less different.
Yes it will happen, what comes around goes around.:cool:
No. It won't.
Sorry.
tlinford
May 8, 06:15 AM
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
They don't ad but but they iAd-will! I wager ! (metaphorically speaking)
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
They don't ad but but they iAd-will! I wager ! (metaphorically speaking)
GoodWatch
May 4, 03:11 PM
That makes sense, while not incredibly expensive, the cost of manufacturing is still overhead if they can reduce it by providing a mechanism for the consumer to d/l it why not.
Whilst I think I have a connection with enough bandwidth to cope with the size, I do want the DVD. The cost of manufacturing (50 cents per DVD?) are costs we as customers pay for, not Apple. I you buy a carton of milk you pay for the milk plus the carton.
Whilst I think I have a connection with enough bandwidth to cope with the size, I do want the DVD. The cost of manufacturing (50 cents per DVD?) are costs we as customers pay for, not Apple. I you buy a carton of milk you pay for the milk plus the carton.
inkswamp
Sep 11, 04:43 AM
Round wheels on those wheelbarrows? You were lucky!
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
Ooooh... how we used to dream of wheels made out of lead. Ours were made of depleted uranium. :eek:
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
Ooooh... how we used to dream of wheels made out of lead. Ours were made of depleted uranium. :eek:
snberk103
May 6, 11:27 AM
I can understand the intuitive justification of this argument, but I'd like to see something more rigorous before I accept it. My own intuitive sense is that learning measurement systems, while important to early child development, don't, in of themselves (i.e., imperial or metric), have a causal relationship with math and science success (or failure) in school. I think there are other much stronger factors to success in math and engineering. One example: "male malaise" in the UK and the USA (a general problem in elementary and secondary schools); also, public school math programs are not rigorous and set the bar relatively low.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
Tell you what ..... you go and find 20 kids in grade 3 or 4. Teach 10 of them how to multiply 3 13/16" by 3, and then teach the other 10 how to multiply 96.8 by 3. Then see how many from each group decide to take up social work, or teaching history, becoming a ski instructor as a profession :D.
citizenzen
Apr 14, 09:57 AM
Take that, fivepoint. Where has he been btw? Haven't seen him around here in a while.
I'll bet he moved on to forums where his ideas were more warmly accepted.
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
I'll bet he moved on to forums where his ideas were more warmly accepted.
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
caspersoong
May 6, 01:08 AM
This seems great. Hope ARM comes with a super-fast APU for computers before long.
peharri
Nov 26, 05:57 AM
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
There are already GNU/Linux based cellphones. And what about the iPhone implies that it would be open in a way that, say, an average Nokia isn't? I appreciate they ported GNU/Linux to the iPod, but for the most part the reason similar things haven't happened on more regular cellphones has been an issue of the amount of work involved, with it being somewhat harder to write a GSM stack from scratch and port a kernel than it is to simply port an off-the-shelf kernel. (And I guess there's the additional issue that there are six zillion cellphones using about one quillion completely incompatible hardware platforms, whereas there are only a handful of MP3 players and only one that's achieved marketshare heaven.)
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
There are already GNU/Linux based cellphones. And what about the iPhone implies that it would be open in a way that, say, an average Nokia isn't? I appreciate they ported GNU/Linux to the iPod, but for the most part the reason similar things haven't happened on more regular cellphones has been an issue of the amount of work involved, with it being somewhat harder to write a GSM stack from scratch and port a kernel than it is to simply port an off-the-shelf kernel. (And I guess there's the additional issue that there are six zillion cellphones using about one quillion completely incompatible hardware platforms, whereas there are only a handful of MP3 players and only one that's achieved marketshare heaven.)
GGJstudios
Dec 13, 10:59 PM
In the meantime, as the Mac user we have some responsibility not to spread Windows viruses to PCs when technology is there.
No, we do NOT have any responsibility to protect Windows users from viruses. It is each computer user's responsibility to protect themselves. Even if every Mac ran antivirus, Windows users are still at a much greater risk from other sources of malware. The common sense approach is for every Windows user to run their own antivirus to protect themselves from malware, whether that malware comes from a Mac user or another source. Mac users do not have a responsibility to burden their computers with AV apps, just because some Windows users may be careless enough to run without AV protection.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
I used AppDelete and it took off everything except the icon on my top bar. When I click on the icon, it says there are updates available... dooooh...
AppDelete left a lot more than that behind. Application removal apps are ineffective (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10903768#post10903768). Manual removal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16) is more complete and reliable.
No, we do NOT have any responsibility to protect Windows users from viruses. It is each computer user's responsibility to protect themselves. Even if every Mac ran antivirus, Windows users are still at a much greater risk from other sources of malware. The common sense approach is for every Windows user to run their own antivirus to protect themselves from malware, whether that malware comes from a Mac user or another source. Mac users do not have a responsibility to burden their computers with AV apps, just because some Windows users may be careless enough to run without AV protection.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
I used AppDelete and it took off everything except the icon on my top bar. When I click on the icon, it says there are updates available... dooooh...
AppDelete left a lot more than that behind. Application removal apps are ineffective (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10903768#post10903768). Manual removal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16) is more complete and reliable.
