cheunghy
Sep 5, 08:44 AM
Apple Store Hong Kong is still up...
Dagless
Apr 30, 06:57 PM
I agree, far better looking and beautiful, however not as cpu/gpu demanding
True, although after inspecting some hardware benchmarks it still cuts computers in half when using the Ultra settings. At least for the same performance cut as Metro 2033 on high.
True, although after inspecting some hardware benchmarks it still cuts computers in half when using the Ultra settings. At least for the same performance cut as Metro 2033 on high.
Chundles
Oct 12, 01:37 PM
There's an even better one on there with a red clickwheel.
Like zees...?
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
Because this one you can actually buy - ColorWare do custom colourisation of iPods, computers, accessories, all sorts of things.
Like zees...?
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
Because this one you can actually buy - ColorWare do custom colourisation of iPods, computers, accessories, all sorts of things.
chaosbunny
May 1, 02:49 AM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
Processor wise, pretty sure, gpu wise, maybe in 2 years. :D
Processor wise, pretty sure, gpu wise, maybe in 2 years. :D
iLunar
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
Why do they always use the smaller sized iPods for the special editions?
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I think its probably an issue of volume. The smaller sizes sell more. Just a guess, I don't have actual numbers.
Tom Sawyer
Apr 30, 07:54 PM
Then I wouldn't plan on ever going back to an iMac.
Definitely no plan to. Apple (SJ) is far to enamored with glossy screens to give anyone options on the large displays/iMacs. I'm still surprised they actually brought the matte option back to MBP's.
Definitely no plan to. Apple (SJ) is far to enamored with glossy screens to give anyone options on the large displays/iMacs. I'm still surprised they actually brought the matte option back to MBP's.
Erasmus
Sep 12, 06:14 AM
http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/logo.gif
PCI Express, not Extreme.
Note that there's a multiplier as well - a PCIe x16 slot is twice as fast as a PCIe x8 slot, and 16 times faster than a PCIe x1 slot.
http://www.pcisig.com/home
Hmmm... OK, My bad.
Two 16- lane PCI Express slots.
Basically take Mac Pro and cut it in half, metaphorically of course.
So, Multimedia, my Cube really has a spot for a fan?
Who would have thought it? Not me, that's for sure.
Seems to me most of the groundwork's already done. All Apple have to do is take the old cube, and integrate the ease of expandability of the existing Mac Pro, add the missing fan, and some other fans inside, and we suddenly have a computer that is able to cool some seriously hot hardware, and will cause a small thermonuclear explosion if you ever put a book over its top vent.
I have decided that I think it is highly unlikely that a kentsfield will find its way into an iMac, however I hope I am mistaken. Very much hoping the Mini Mac Pro is created.
BTW, What is with all the Anti Mini Mac Pro hostility??? "I'm sorry, you can't have a Quad 2.67 Ghz CPU and a top of the line graphics card. I'm sure a Mac Mini will more than fulfil your needs, with its Dual 1.86 Ghz Yonah processor and Integrated Graphics. As long as you de-emphasize on productivity, you should find a Mac Mini is plenty fast enough. After all, Apple is perfect, and anything they don't offer should be wanted by you."
PCI Express, not Extreme.
Note that there's a multiplier as well - a PCIe x16 slot is twice as fast as a PCIe x8 slot, and 16 times faster than a PCIe x1 slot.
http://www.pcisig.com/home
Hmmm... OK, My bad.
Two 16- lane PCI Express slots.
Basically take Mac Pro and cut it in half, metaphorically of course.
So, Multimedia, my Cube really has a spot for a fan?
Who would have thought it? Not me, that's for sure.
Seems to me most of the groundwork's already done. All Apple have to do is take the old cube, and integrate the ease of expandability of the existing Mac Pro, add the missing fan, and some other fans inside, and we suddenly have a computer that is able to cool some seriously hot hardware, and will cause a small thermonuclear explosion if you ever put a book over its top vent.
I have decided that I think it is highly unlikely that a kentsfield will find its way into an iMac, however I hope I am mistaken. Very much hoping the Mini Mac Pro is created.
BTW, What is with all the Anti Mini Mac Pro hostility??? "I'm sorry, you can't have a Quad 2.67 Ghz CPU and a top of the line graphics card. I'm sure a Mac Mini will more than fulfil your needs, with its Dual 1.86 Ghz Yonah processor and Integrated Graphics. As long as you de-emphasize on productivity, you should find a Mac Mini is plenty fast enough. After all, Apple is perfect, and anything they don't offer should be wanted by you."
Chris Bangle
Sep 4, 05:13 AM
Something has to happen on the 12th becuase there were reports that british press had been invited. We'll find out tomarrow coz invites usually get sent a week before.
woodman
Sep 14, 01:23 AM
Instead of having a slide-down clickwheel that reveals buttons, why not just have the clickwheel behave like those old roatary phones. You can just scroll around a circle of numbers on the screen and click to select it. That'd be cleaner. Of course text messages are a different thing :)
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
TheIguana
Nov 13, 11:50 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
Macginger
Mar 22, 01:24 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
google thunderbolt and you'll find it, or at least what people are planning on bringing out but it's out there :cool:
ok did it for you :)
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Rocketman
google thunderbolt and you'll find it, or at least what people are planning on bringing out but it's out there :cool:
ok did it for you :)
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
SilianRail
Apr 22, 02:56 PM
Thinking of getting this for my mom. The top of her needs are 1080p YouTube videos, will they run smoothly?
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 01:06 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
bommai
Sep 19, 05:52 PM
1) Thanks for reminding me, i forgot that fact.
2) But you'll happily have a RAID array and plug THAT into your iBook?
3) Yeah you said, a RAID array... a sort of external HD, but in an array.
4) If you take your iBook on the road with you, then how are the other people in your house going to access the movies and other media via iTV if its stored on your "RAID array" which requires a host computer to be of any use?
You have high expectations for Apple then? Its going to be some RAID array!
Rather than a RAID, what they need is a foolproof NAS (Network-attached storage). A NAS is basically a special purpose computer that has a network port (wired/wireless) as well as internal/external storage through USB/SATA/eSATA. For example D-Link makes a NAS that is compatible with uPnP as well as Bonjour. This box has space for an internal hard drive (ATA) as well as USB2 for external HDs. It has 802.11g wireless as well as ethernet port. You just connect is as another network device in your home and then you can dump your media into it from your PC/Mac. So, for people with laptops, you can buy your media or RIP them into the NAS and then iTV can use it. This can work well for people with laptops. iTV should be able to work off of a NAS rather than a PC/Mac.
The current versions of NAS may not be foolproof (Apple quality standards) and therefore this is a companion product that Apple could produce for home media storage. Another advantage of the NAS is that it can be near where iTV is rather than the computer since the bandwidth requirements for iTV are more important than for the computer. You don't want glitches while playing back media. So, you could live with downloading the media from online into NAS directly (through a slower wireless connection). Then have the NAS connected through wired ethernet to iTV.
Hope this makes sense!!
2) But you'll happily have a RAID array and plug THAT into your iBook?
3) Yeah you said, a RAID array... a sort of external HD, but in an array.
4) If you take your iBook on the road with you, then how are the other people in your house going to access the movies and other media via iTV if its stored on your "RAID array" which requires a host computer to be of any use?
You have high expectations for Apple then? Its going to be some RAID array!
Rather than a RAID, what they need is a foolproof NAS (Network-attached storage). A NAS is basically a special purpose computer that has a network port (wired/wireless) as well as internal/external storage through USB/SATA/eSATA. For example D-Link makes a NAS that is compatible with uPnP as well as Bonjour. This box has space for an internal hard drive (ATA) as well as USB2 for external HDs. It has 802.11g wireless as well as ethernet port. You just connect is as another network device in your home and then you can dump your media into it from your PC/Mac. So, for people with laptops, you can buy your media or RIP them into the NAS and then iTV can use it. This can work well for people with laptops. iTV should be able to work off of a NAS rather than a PC/Mac.
The current versions of NAS may not be foolproof (Apple quality standards) and therefore this is a companion product that Apple could produce for home media storage. Another advantage of the NAS is that it can be near where iTV is rather than the computer since the bandwidth requirements for iTV are more important than for the computer. You don't want glitches while playing back media. So, you could live with downloading the media from online into NAS directly (through a slower wireless connection). Then have the NAS connected through wired ethernet to iTV.
Hope this makes sense!!
Leej
Sep 26, 10:12 PM
Already have a Cingular deal. Sweet!
Calidude
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
Lets leave these apps alone and put the Senators in jail.
MacinDoc
Sep 14, 03:38 PM
Any chance we'll see an Apple widescreen H.264/AAC camcorder there?
It's an interesting idea, but I think this one is in next year territory, when it can be combined with iTV for wireless video streaming to you Mac or your TV.
And how about an iPod dock connector/cable to use an iPod for storage to keep the costs down (and sell more iPods)?
A definite possibility, since one of the things Apple is purportedly demoing at the show is a data archiving system.
It's an interesting idea, but I think this one is in next year territory, when it can be combined with iTV for wireless video streaming to you Mac or your TV.
And how about an iPod dock connector/cable to use an iPod for storage to keep the costs down (and sell more iPods)?
A definite possibility, since one of the things Apple is purportedly demoing at the show is a data archiving system.
CJM
Sep 5, 03:10 AM
I love those kind of reactions, just look one time at this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500), and you'll know what I mean
True.
I don't have a use for such a device right now, but I was also a person that said I didn't want an iPod... I now have 3. So in the future, I might be wanting a video streamer.
True.
I don't have a use for such a device right now, but I was also a person that said I didn't want an iPod... I now have 3. So in the future, I might be wanting a video streamer.
cadillaccactus
Aug 31, 02:58 PM
I wonder if it will still be called the iTunes Music Store?
I have oft wondered the same thing. is iTunes really the best name for the store anymore?
anyone have ideas?
I have oft wondered the same thing. is iTunes really the best name for the store anymore?
anyone have ideas?
blackstarliner
Sep 19, 03:15 PM
Afte reading the whole article, I get the feeling that Apple will be slammed in this Thursday's follow-up article about iTS.
Maybe, but he seems to mention that it was nicer somehow in one paragraph.
Plus, this review finds shortcomings in both systems:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/15548570.htm
Maybe, but he seems to mention that it was nicer somehow in one paragraph.
Plus, this review finds shortcomings in both systems:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/15548570.htm
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs.
Actually, my old sony 27" CRT was a standard def TV and it had component inputs, and that was 5 years ago. Coupled with my sony progressive scan DVD player with component outputs, and was able to watch proper anamorphic video on my standard def TV. At that time that was the main selling point for me getting that TV. Searching around just now, I found quite a few standard def TV's that have component inputs.
Of course, I have an HDTV now, but for what it was, that 27" was a great tv with component inputs.
Actually, my old sony 27" CRT was a standard def TV and it had component inputs, and that was 5 years ago. Coupled with my sony progressive scan DVD player with component outputs, and was able to watch proper anamorphic video on my standard def TV. At that time that was the main selling point for me getting that TV. Searching around just now, I found quite a few standard def TV's that have component inputs.
Of course, I have an HDTV now, but for what it was, that 27" was a great tv with component inputs.
rdowns
Apr 29, 01:37 PM
There is just so much wrong with 100% of your post. I can't even begin, nor will I spend time, contradicting every sentence.
In short, there is no war between Apple and Microsoft...nor has been for decades. Also, you think Apple is not a monopoly? Apple makes the hardware, the OS, the apps, and Appstore, and APPROVES what apps consumers can purchase. No...that's not a monopoly. No, sir.
That is wrong. Apple has no more of a monopoly on the iPhone as Samsung has one for the Galaxy. For Apple to have a monopoly, there would be few to no companies making smart phones. There are dozens of smart phone companies, 5 or so mobile OSs, many App Stores and all exert some control (that they decided on) over your device. So, no, that's not a monopoly.
In short, there is no war between Apple and Microsoft...nor has been for decades. Also, you think Apple is not a monopoly? Apple makes the hardware, the OS, the apps, and Appstore, and APPROVES what apps consumers can purchase. No...that's not a monopoly. No, sir.
That is wrong. Apple has no more of a monopoly on the iPhone as Samsung has one for the Galaxy. For Apple to have a monopoly, there would be few to no companies making smart phones. There are dozens of smart phone companies, 5 or so mobile OSs, many App Stores and all exert some control (that they decided on) over your device. So, no, that's not a monopoly.
jz1492
Nov 13, 04:09 PM
The difference is that Apple can veto the very concept of the app, after the fact. E.g.: google voice clients, podcast receivers, etc. (the list of examples is quite long). There's a difference between requiring a late tweak and vetoing the core functionality of the app.
I agree with that. ;)
Yet, that is not the case this time, or I'd say, for the majority of rejections. Apple most of the time allows you to make the necessary changes, as odd as they may seem.
I agree with that. ;)
Yet, that is not the case this time, or I'd say, for the majority of rejections. Apple most of the time allows you to make the necessary changes, as odd as they may seem.
