mazola
Aug 31, 03:19 PM
Here comes Leather iPod Sock -- version 2.0!
GoodWatch
May 3, 02:23 PM
Nice pieces of kit. Would this put the top of the line iMacs in the realm of professional photographers who have to do a lot of post processing? Or is the monitor not up to scratch for that? I can see huge external RAID arrays equipped with Thunderbolt to cater for the safe storage of large amounts of RAW files :D
theking79
Apr 30, 04:46 PM
To Quote Hellhammer specs,
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
that top spec 27" is never going to happen, it will have 4GB RAM and a i5 processor with BTO option of a i7
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
that top spec 27" is never going to happen, it will have 4GB RAM and a i5 processor with BTO option of a i7
JMP
Apr 30, 07:06 PM
I love internet tough guys.
That makes two of us.
That makes two of us.
zep1977
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
I bet ballmers goal is $5.99 billion profit next quarter.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Speedracer04
Sep 12, 02:22 PM
and what exactly is the gapless playback...I guess I missed that. Im a little disappointed by the conference...i mean the new iTV isnt even available until next year...blah
bigjnyc
Apr 25, 12:55 PM
Oh boy I've been trying to hold strong with my perfectly working 2009 MBP and not give in to any updates... This is the longest I've gone with a computer since I started using Macs lol...... But a case re-design might be too much for me.
SilianRail
Apr 14, 04:58 PM
Using the 3.0 drive, the 10-gigabyte folder transferred to the U.S.B. 3.0 drive in 6 minutes, 31 seconds (write speed). The U.S.B. 2.0 drive took 22 minutes, 14 seconds to copy the same 10-gig folder.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Love
Apr 11, 09:09 PM
Canada is sounding awfully good to me right now.
Minimum wage is $8.80 in my province (one of the lower wages in Canada, but also relatively low taxes), but you could easily make $11 min. at a good few fast food places. The average official minimum wage is probably around $9.30 here. The taxes we pay are higher, but then there's the healthcare and other social things. Perhaps we can continue that, if we get rid of our current PM who wants Canada to be a smaller-population more-land version of the States...
Minimum wage is $8.80 in my province (one of the lower wages in Canada, but also relatively low taxes), but you could easily make $11 min. at a good few fast food places. The average official minimum wage is probably around $9.30 here. The taxes we pay are higher, but then there's the healthcare and other social things. Perhaps we can continue that, if we get rid of our current PM who wants Canada to be a smaller-population more-land version of the States...
JSchwage
Sep 9, 08:10 PM
All I can say is I can't wait for the Merom Macbooks! Speed increases are always nice things. :D
hob
Aug 31, 07:37 PM
So does anyone know where in London it will be shown, except BBC TV centre by invite only?
Better yet, how do I get an invite?!
Better yet, how do I get an invite?!
aussie_geek
May 4, 03:29 AM
Bit of a bummer regarding the target display mode. I use my iMac as a target display with my gaming pc. So anyone with a PC box would have to fork out $$$ for a thunderbolt graphics card....
Are there any thunderbolt gfx cards for PC yet?
Are there any thunderbolt gfx cards for PC yet?
JGowan
Sep 19, 09:02 PM
FWIW $50M/year is ~0.2% of Disney's revenue (they made ~$30B/year for the past few years). Definitely not chicken feed, but not earth shattering either.BConsidering that they sold "010101010's", I think an extra $50M is extraordinary. Apple ripped 75 DVDs, made a few web pages and boom... $1M in 7 days! I don't know what you're talking about... you're thinking small... $50M/YR is JUST THE BEGINNING.
cwt1nospam
Apr 3, 09:25 PM
Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Since and with no let up.
Since and with no let up.
BryanLyle
May 3, 11:18 AM
"Macworld has confirmation from Apple that the new iMacs will support Target Display Mode but only when the device they are connected to is also a Thunderbolt equipped Mac."
Is that true?
Is that true?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 09:23 AM
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:22 PM
Wow, that seems pretty darn reasonable.
I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!
You can't, unless you wait for the Merom version later next month which will be more expensive. Conroe (Core 2 duo that is out now) uses a different socket from Yonah. Merom is the pin-compatible one.
I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!
You can't, unless you wait for the Merom version later next month which will be more expensive. Conroe (Core 2 duo that is out now) uses a different socket from Yonah. Merom is the pin-compatible one.
toddybody
Mar 22, 07:00 PM
FYI guys, just in case we need a refresher here since it been a while. I hope this helps to jog some memories.
Kim Kardashian amp; Kris
zz5555
Jul 14, 06:04 PM
Whether IMac takes Merom or Conroe, it's still 64 bit. Does anybody have any feeling whether the IMac will be able to handle > 2GB of memory (assuming 2GB dimms are for sale)? That would make me very happy :)
Thanks,
Steve
Thanks,
Steve
Teddy's
Sep 1, 09:08 AM
If there were a special event like the one described iLounge would have received one.
Maybe is not about iPods.
Who knows for sure? This is a rumor site
Maybe is not about iPods.
Who knows for sure? This is a rumor site
Putzi360
Apr 22, 12:25 PM
For me I just need the backlit keyboard reintroduced into the Air.
Then my wife would get my MBp13 instantly.
Then my wife would get my MBp13 instantly.
124151155
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
It's be a good idea if Thunderbolt was capable of handling USB 3 as well, like the thunderbolt port in the MacBook Pro can also do mini display.
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
ChazUK
Apr 19, 10:38 AM
Between Samsung on the hardware and Google on the software, I can't believe anyone in their right mind actually saying with a straight face that the Samsung phone in question is not stealing from Apple. Get a grip.
The customisation of the Galaxy S has nothing to do with Google at all. This isn't stock Android and none of the Samsung UI elements are a part of the AOSP.
The customisation of the Galaxy S has nothing to do with Google at all. This isn't stock Android and none of the Samsung UI elements are a part of the AOSP.
citizenzen
Apr 17, 01:47 PM
Published in USA today. An article titled "Are Lives Really an Acceptable Price for Fuel Efficiency?"
Actually, I doubt that's where you read it.
A google search of the terms: Are Lives Really an Acceptable Price for Fuel Efficiency + USA Today comes up with this as a top hit: Arguing with idiots: how to stop small minds and big government By Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe, Steve Burguiere, which apparently references the 1999 USA Today article.
Are you a Glenn Beck fan perhaps?
That would explain so much. :rolleyes:
Actually, I doubt that's where you read it.
A google search of the terms: Are Lives Really an Acceptable Price for Fuel Efficiency + USA Today comes up with this as a top hit: Arguing with idiots: how to stop small minds and big government By Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe, Steve Burguiere, which apparently references the 1999 USA Today article.
Are you a Glenn Beck fan perhaps?
That would explain so much. :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment