samcraig
Apr 27, 09:59 AM
This was my point. If you don't agree, no need to get your panties in a bunch, just don't comment. You gots some demons in you chil'...
I find your statement back to him a bit hypocritical and quite judgmental. Why are his panties in a twist but not yours?
Your initial reply to him was harsh to begin with and he replied logically. Agree to disagree. Leave it at that.
I find your statement back to him a bit hypocritical and quite judgmental. Why are his panties in a twist but not yours?
Your initial reply to him was harsh to begin with and he replied logically. Agree to disagree. Leave it at that.
CoffeeMonkey
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Widescreen is great for movie watching, and the spec-lover in me is all over that... but it�s not very flexible for portrait use. (Which is how you hold a tablet one-handed, and is how you see the most content on a web page or scrolling document.)
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
shelterpaw
Jul 20, 10:43 AM
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
It certainly will help. Though most pro apps are optimized for mulit-processors. I know much of Adobe/Macromedia's line is, well I'm not sure about the macromeida products. Apples Pro apps are and most of the DAW's are optimized, like Ableton 5.2/6.0, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools.
It will be great is to see games optimized for this, which I do believe will happen now that most OEM's will be sporting mulitiple cores in the future.
sgibson
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
You keep using that word� (http://cl.ly/0X032o272d2a3G1T1K3D)
gorgeousninja
Mar 23, 08:21 AM
Complete BS "iphone" lookalikes date back to ebfore the iphone was anounced. So either some companys have people who can predict the future, or the design and tech behind the iphone was aused BEFORe it was released and apple just changed excisting designs.
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
History revisionist ahoy!
Please name us one single phone that the original iPhone is a direct copy of....
That's right, there isn't one....
Oh, and if the iPad is really just a smartphone, it's rather lacking in 'phone' features don't you think?...
So you don't continue to make too big a fool of yourself, the iPhone is in actual fact just a small iPad.
The iPad concept predates the iPhone, though they needed the rest of the world to catch up to them before they could release it.
Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and scream so you can't hear..
but it's still the truth...
Ipad is basicly a large smartphone.
History revisionist ahoy!
Please name us one single phone that the original iPhone is a direct copy of....
That's right, there isn't one....
Oh, and if the iPad is really just a smartphone, it's rather lacking in 'phone' features don't you think?...
So you don't continue to make too big a fool of yourself, the iPhone is in actual fact just a small iPad.
The iPad concept predates the iPhone, though they needed the rest of the world to catch up to them before they could release it.
Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and scream so you can't hear..
but it's still the truth...
wolfshades
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
I wish RIM all the success in the world, even as I say that coming out with a WiFi-only version of the Playbook is a little short-sighted. Add to that so many executives want to have just one device, not two, in order to talk to their BES servers. (You need to pair the Playbook with a Blackberry)
I know that for RIM is a catch-22. They want desperately to compete with Apple before the iPad corners the market on tablets, and they didn't feel they could wait until their 3G product arrives at the end of this year.
I know that for RIM is a catch-22. They want desperately to compete with Apple before the iPad corners the market on tablets, and they didn't feel they could wait until their 3G product arrives at the end of this year.
dustinsc
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
citizenzen
Apr 28, 04:05 PM
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
phairphan
Aug 26, 04:19 PM
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
tekmoe
Jul 27, 02:57 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
this blog was also written by jason o'grady, aka the PowerPage rumor site. his writing means nothing to me.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.
this blog was also written by jason o'grady, aka the PowerPage rumor site. his writing means nothing to me.
manu chao
Apr 25, 01:49 PM
Ah, the perfect storm! A (probable) bug that does not clip the data the way Google does it,
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
And Google occasionally stores random data from any unsecured WiFi network its StreetView cars come by.
I now there were rumblings about government investigations into Google's data grab (which was transmitted and stored onto Google's computers) but was there also a lawsuit?
Not that Apple should not have fixed this presumed bug when it first was reported last year. Either nobody at Apple was really paying attention to what other people managed to extract in terms of 'forensic information' or they were not organised (or motivated) enough to get fix done. I cannot help myself but thinking that a scenario in which Apple knew about this but decided to fix it only with iOS 5 is not that unlikely.
Natually this leads to stupid lawsuits. This is America, dammit!
And Google occasionally stores random data from any unsecured WiFi network its StreetView cars come by.
I now there were rumblings about government investigations into Google's data grab (which was transmitted and stored onto Google's computers) but was there also a lawsuit?
Not that Apple should not have fixed this presumed bug when it first was reported last year. Either nobody at Apple was really paying attention to what other people managed to extract in terms of 'forensic information' or they were not organised (or motivated) enough to get fix done. I cannot help myself but thinking that a scenario in which Apple knew about this but decided to fix it only with iOS 5 is not that unlikely.
shamino
Jul 20, 05:41 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Historically, Apple has always sold a dual-processor model of the Pro systems. When dual-core PPCs became available, they shipped a G5 system with two of these.
In the absence of any other information, it seems pretty darn obvious that the high-end Mac Pro will have two processors, regardless of how many cores are in it. Which means it will have to be something from the Xeon line.
Apple doesn't need to cripple the Mac Pro in order to promote the Xserve. The two products are designed for completely different applications and are not interchangeable for any serious applications. Nobody will ever want to use an Xserve on their desktop, and nobody setting up a compute cluster will want to build it from desktop boxes.
sunfast
Aug 17, 02:07 AM
Awesome machine. Just awesome. I can't believe that photoshop test!
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 01:43 AM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
AngryCorgi
Apr 6, 04:16 PM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
I'll give you some insight into their potential. The desktop i7-2600k has been benchmarked to be roughly equivalent to a 9400m in performance (assuming similar CPU).
i7-2600k GPU clock = 850/1350 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2410m (13" Mac Pro base) GPU clock = 650/1200 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2620m (13" Mac Pro upg) GPU clock = 650/1300 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i5-2537m (theorized 11/13 MBA) GPU clock = 350/900 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
i7-2649m (theorized 13 MBA upg) GPU clock = 500/1100 (normal/turbo)(MHz)
As you can see, none of the mobile GPUs run quite as fast as the desktop, but the 13" 2.7GHz upg cpu's comes fairly close. Now, the 2.13 GHz MBA + 320m combo matched or beat out the i7-2620m in 75% of the tests (and only narrowly was defeated in 25%). There is going to be some random inconcistancy regardless, due to driver variances in different apps. The issue here is (and this can be shown in core2 vs. i5/i7 testing on the alienware m11x) the core2 duo really very rarely gets beat by the i5/i7 in gaming/video playback. This is because not many games are single-threaded anymore, and if using 2+ threads, the i5/i7 ULV won't jump the clock speed any. Further, the 2.13GHz was keeping up with and beating a 2.7GHz (27% higher clock!) in that test, because graphics are the bottleneck, not the CPU. Take into account that NONE of the ULV core-i options match the MBP 13" 2.7GHz upg GPU speed and its pretty clear that for graphics-intensive apps, the older 320m would be the way to go. Now for most everything else, the i7-2649m would overtake the core2 2.13GHz. This includes a lot of non-accelerated video playback (high-CPU-overhead).
Something you guys need to be wary of is the 1333MHz memory topic. Likely, Apple will choose to run it down at 1066MHz to conserve battery life. Memory speed hikes = gratuitous battery drain.
I for one am happy Apple is growing with the modern tech, but I hold no illusions as to the benefits/drawbacks of either system.
caspersoong
Apr 7, 07:14 AM
I might get it if it gets better graphics...
ShiftClick
Apr 5, 05:06 PM
Problem is, its still Final Cut and will still suck at managing media.
milo
Jul 27, 02:21 PM
Those aren't next generation version of the Core 2 just MCM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Chip_Module) of the existing Core 2.
Still, they are the successors to conroe and woodcrest. As long as they are socket compatible, they're the next generation for these machines, whether you consider them a new chip or not.
Am i the only one that seems to think that WWDC is getting clogged up with TOO many things? I mean sure the more Apple products released/updated the better, but this keynote seems to be taking a lot of emphasis off of Leopard previews (according to the rumors)
It's all just rumor at this point. More than 2 computer announcments would be very unlikely, and the idea that all macs would get updated at once is ridiculous.
Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? :rolleyes: Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.
The only mac that took a step back was the iMac, and it never took advantage of any of the 64 bit advantages in the first place.
I can't figure out why it wouldn't have a 2nd slot or FW800. They're both cheap enough to add. The only problem is the 2nd slot adds some height, but not that much. This unit would be less than 5" tall. And anyway, how do you backup your CD's?
A second slot is overkill for a midline model. And Apple has obviously made the decision that FW800 is a pro feature only, if it's not in the 15 inch MBP. Not to mention that it's not included in the standard intel chipsets, so adding it is extra work for Apple.
Remember that the G5 is 64 bit. While the consumer apps may not be too directly affected at first, (speed increases, but nothing else), as more memory is required, 32 bit will hit a brick wall at 4GiB, whereas 64 bit can go along happily to 2,305,843,009,200,000,000GiB.
And since the iMacs have never supported more than 2 gigs of ram, how is that a step back by switching them to Yonah?
Still, they are the successors to conroe and woodcrest. As long as they are socket compatible, they're the next generation for these machines, whether you consider them a new chip or not.
Am i the only one that seems to think that WWDC is getting clogged up with TOO many things? I mean sure the more Apple products released/updated the better, but this keynote seems to be taking a lot of emphasis off of Leopard previews (according to the rumors)
It's all just rumor at this point. More than 2 computer announcments would be very unlikely, and the idea that all macs would get updated at once is ridiculous.
Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? :rolleyes: Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.
The only mac that took a step back was the iMac, and it never took advantage of any of the 64 bit advantages in the first place.
I can't figure out why it wouldn't have a 2nd slot or FW800. They're both cheap enough to add. The only problem is the 2nd slot adds some height, but not that much. This unit would be less than 5" tall. And anyway, how do you backup your CD's?
A second slot is overkill for a midline model. And Apple has obviously made the decision that FW800 is a pro feature only, if it's not in the 15 inch MBP. Not to mention that it's not included in the standard intel chipsets, so adding it is extra work for Apple.
Remember that the G5 is 64 bit. While the consumer apps may not be too directly affected at first, (speed increases, but nothing else), as more memory is required, 32 bit will hit a brick wall at 4GiB, whereas 64 bit can go along happily to 2,305,843,009,200,000,000GiB.
And since the iMacs have never supported more than 2 gigs of ram, how is that a step back by switching them to Yonah?
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:44 PM
Doesn't this make sense? I think I'm close, I'm sure I forgot something / not perfectly accurate, but this seems like what Apple is shooting for. Makes sense to me...
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
artistry
Nov 29, 03:06 AM
I can't see this standing up in the EU - it would be knocked down at first attempt in the European Court I'm sure.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
Whatever, if someone with no Universal Music on their iPod wants to I bet they'd be able to cause a stink by asking for the 'tax' back.
I'm surprised no one's sued Universal for libel since the 'all iPod owners are thieves' thing.
rdowns
Mar 24, 01:07 PM
Oh. So when a person criticizes Obama for keeping us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Libya, just level an accusation of racism.
Got it.
That's not what I said at all but feel free to parse things as you see fit.
Got it.
That's not what I said at all but feel free to parse things as you see fit.
LC475
Apr 11, 06:49 PM
There's nothing to fear about Apple making FCP less than professional.
The thing to understand is that NLEs never change their basic structure of how editing works, i.e moving clips in the timeline, trimming, etc. Look at Avid - it hasn't changed much at all since the 90s because they know if they did, they would lose their base of users. Avid came in the early 90s, and FCP came in the late 90s. FCP is an improvement to the Avid idea of NLE editing, and it's a good improvement. That's one reason why it became popular. Sure, the GUI might change but the basic way of working will not. After Effects is a good example. The GUI looks totally different than it did on version 5, but you can still work basically the same.
I don't understand what people mean by FCP lagging behind Avid and Adobe. In the last couple years, FCP has been making strong gains in Hollywood. WB, 20th Fox, Paramount have all used FCP on major movies. I worked as an AE on one of them. Professionals like FCP, many movie editors I know like FCP, major post houses use it, and I'm sure after tomorrow we will like it even more.
If anything, FCP has become less of a consumer app and more of a professional one. Hollywood wouldn't have thought of using FCP in 1999 on version 1, but they're using it now. It's become more professional over the last ten years.
With the new technology of thunderbolt, 64bit support, and multithreading support, in addition to iPad support, we should see an awesome upgrade tomorrow.
The thing to understand is that NLEs never change their basic structure of how editing works, i.e moving clips in the timeline, trimming, etc. Look at Avid - it hasn't changed much at all since the 90s because they know if they did, they would lose their base of users. Avid came in the early 90s, and FCP came in the late 90s. FCP is an improvement to the Avid idea of NLE editing, and it's a good improvement. That's one reason why it became popular. Sure, the GUI might change but the basic way of working will not. After Effects is a good example. The GUI looks totally different than it did on version 5, but you can still work basically the same.
I don't understand what people mean by FCP lagging behind Avid and Adobe. In the last couple years, FCP has been making strong gains in Hollywood. WB, 20th Fox, Paramount have all used FCP on major movies. I worked as an AE on one of them. Professionals like FCP, many movie editors I know like FCP, major post houses use it, and I'm sure after tomorrow we will like it even more.
If anything, FCP has become less of a consumer app and more of a professional one. Hollywood wouldn't have thought of using FCP in 1999 on version 1, but they're using it now. It's become more professional over the last ten years.
With the new technology of thunderbolt, 64bit support, and multithreading support, in addition to iPad support, we should see an awesome upgrade tomorrow.
dave420
Apr 25, 01:39 PM
but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
I too don't like the idea of a device saving my location. On the other hand when I am using the Maps app for driving directions which sends my current location to Google, I would be naive to think that information isn't being stored somewhere.
