miazma
May 3, 07:25 PM
what I'm waiting for now:
apple cinema display with thunderbolt port and ability to plug mouse/keyboard and use it as an extension for macbooks with thunderbolt.
that would be something like a great docking station. just plug it in and go for it.
apple cinema display with thunderbolt port and ability to plug mouse/keyboard and use it as an extension for macbooks with thunderbolt.
that would be something like a great docking station. just plug it in and go for it.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 04:22 PM
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
Hmmm.... looks like if I want to, I'll have to ebay it. :-p Thanks for the info though.
Hmmm.... looks like if I want to, I'll have to ebay it. :-p Thanks for the info though.
grum
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
Pretty big thing if you are into dance music/dj mixes that are seperated into tracks. There are suprisingly few mp3 players that will play them gapless
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
Pretty big thing if you are into dance music/dj mixes that are seperated into tracks. There are suprisingly few mp3 players that will play them gapless
bstpierre
Nov 13, 02:01 PM
I have to disagree. Rogue Amoeba in *no way* violated Trademark or Copyright rules with this. In fact, they used Apple's own OS X APIs.
w00master
I agree with you. If they are using an image sent by Mac OS X for just such a purpose they are not doing anything wrong.
It makes me think that maybe there are some lowly app reviewers who are letting the power go to their heads.
w00master
I agree with you. If they are using an image sent by Mac OS X for just such a purpose they are not doing anything wrong.
It makes me think that maybe there are some lowly app reviewers who are letting the power go to their heads.
Platform
Sep 26, 07:35 AM
Leopard and iPhone....hmm...should be good, but I hope the phone comes out world wide ;)
cyclone84
Sep 15, 11:52 PM
Good god, calm down until this thing is actually released. What is the point of getting so hyped up over this RUMOR (which is all it is at this point)?
shervieux
Apr 23, 05:30 PM
That's what's going to happen, I'm sure of it. And I'm honestly kind of impressed that the MacBook Pro still doesn't give you an option to buy one without a DVD drive; I have a 2011 MBP and I swear, it doesn't get any use whatsoever. Apple's obsession with using every square millimeter of space on a portable device apparently ends when it comes to optical disk drives on MBPs.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
Normally, I would say I could go either way with the optical drive. But lately, I have been having to burn a lot of CD's and DVD's for people. I would be willing to give up the optical drive for a second hard drive in a MBP. I would want a thunderbolt quad core with 4gb ram. I need a min of 750gb in hard drive space.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
I'd much rather have additional battery life. QC i7s eat battery for breakfast, even Sandy Bridge.
Normally, I would say I could go either way with the optical drive. But lately, I have been having to burn a lot of CD's and DVD's for people. I would be willing to give up the optical drive for a second hard drive in a MBP. I would want a thunderbolt quad core with 4gb ram. I need a min of 750gb in hard drive space.
If the price of SSD was not so high, I would look into an AIR. A 13-inch quad core air with 4gb ram would be sweet. I just priced out what I would need in an AIR (but drive still too small) and it comes to the price of just getting a MBP.
Kingsly
Sep 1, 02:08 AM
Well for the sake of pontificating.....
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
Taking pictures and movies wtih cell phones is very big right now.
But as Steve Jobs would say "it's not a great experience."
He'll show a really crappy movie made on a cell phone.
He'll talk about how the world is evolving, more bandwidth has led to sites like Youtube.
Consumers are getting way more intelligent with movies, and we pioneered desktop movies with iMovie and then added HD functionality with iMovie HD.
But we want to take this one step further.
We want to go from this (shows youtube home movie) to a really great cinematic experience.
Today Apple introduces the world's least expensive High Definition video camera. There are no tapes. It's as easy as iPod.
You just shoot in 1080p, hook it up to your supercharged Intel Mac, edit in iMovie HD, and BOOM.
Look at this. It's gorgeous. Isn't this amazing?
So we're going from this (youtube video) to this. BOOM. Wow.
ROARS OF APPLAUSE AND THUNDER.
And we're introducing the all new QuickTake (or iCam whatever) for just $599.
Do you take PayPal!?!?!?!?!?
dops7107
Sep 12, 04:49 PM
They mention battery life, but music is still 20 hours rated, so I think they only list more battery life because they have the "BRIGHTNESS" setting now! ha-ha. So I think my battery is just as good too?
That's a good point. I thought maybe they put a higher capacity battery in, and I wondered if it could be replaced, but perhaps it is all due to the screen brightness. I thought the most energy sapping thing was the hard drive though, not the display.
That's a good point. I thought maybe they put a higher capacity battery in, and I wondered if it could be replaced, but perhaps it is all due to the screen brightness. I thought the most energy sapping thing was the hard drive though, not the display.
Trekkie
Aug 24, 08:21 AM
Can't wait to see what my Apple stock does today...:rolleyes:
I'd bet it bounces up, because now they don't have this crap hanging over their heads. The judgement vs. the settlement could have been a crapload worse should they have lost.
I'd bet it bounces up, because now they don't have this crap hanging over their heads. The judgement vs. the settlement could have been a crapload worse should they have lost.
direzz
Oct 12, 04:27 PM
I hope somehow apple creates forum software with spotlight search so as soon as I start typing something it searches through 500 pages of posts and on the right side of the screen will show similar comments, who posted it, and on what pages similar comments are/where posted.
:rolleyes: buddy, this forum was designed on a pc.
:rolleyes: buddy, this forum was designed on a pc.
Silencio
Oct 12, 02:04 PM
Way to display your ignorance, Saladin.
Don't you know that Led Zeppelin never licenses their name and music for anything? Besides Cadillac and the Almost Famous soundtrack.
Don't you know that Led Zeppelin never licenses their name and music for anything? Besides Cadillac and the Almost Famous soundtrack.
Optimus Frag
Apr 23, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ok. So it's lack of compromise that some are keen to avoid.
Understandable. That's if the next MBA has the 3000HD in it of course. Who's knows what cooking in Apple' R&D dungeon.
I just know from being a nerd myself, how much some can get hung up on such technical points.
It's just that core group of people seem to want a MBA to able to gene sequence the complete human genome before lunchtime before they'll buy one.
I on the other hand would like it to be very portable and do the stuff I do on my 3 yr old iMac, surf, email, BBC iPlayer some light video editing and photo storage. Won't be getting one for at least 6 months anyway so maybe open CL will be on a Intel graphics chip by then.
Ok. So it's lack of compromise that some are keen to avoid.
Understandable. That's if the next MBA has the 3000HD in it of course. Who's knows what cooking in Apple' R&D dungeon.
I just know from being a nerd myself, how much some can get hung up on such technical points.
It's just that core group of people seem to want a MBA to able to gene sequence the complete human genome before lunchtime before they'll buy one.
I on the other hand would like it to be very portable and do the stuff I do on my 3 yr old iMac, surf, email, BBC iPlayer some light video editing and photo storage. Won't be getting one for at least 6 months anyway so maybe open CL will be on a Intel graphics chip by then.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
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.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
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? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
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). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
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.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
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.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
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.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
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? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
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). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
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.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
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.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
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.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
berkleeboy210
Sep 5, 08:49 AM
If we see new macs when the store is up. then it will be clear that the upcoming event will be only iPod related. here's to mac updates this morning!:D
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:48 PM
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying....
However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I came to the opposite conclusion....
Running many compute-bound single-threaded benchmarks and apps - I saw how NT (pre Win2k) would balance across CPUs (that is, a "100%" compute-bound job would show each CPU running at 50%).
However, setting affinity so that one CPU was 100% and the other was 0% had no significant effect on the run times. (And by "significant" I mean statistically significant - I literally ran hundreds of runs in each configuration.)\\
By the way, with Win2k3 (and XP 64-bit, really the same system) you see much less "balancing" - a single-threaded app will stick to a CPU for much longer.
However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I came to the opposite conclusion....
Running many compute-bound single-threaded benchmarks and apps - I saw how NT (pre Win2k) would balance across CPUs (that is, a "100%" compute-bound job would show each CPU running at 50%).
However, setting affinity so that one CPU was 100% and the other was 0% had no significant effect on the run times. (And by "significant" I mean statistically significant - I literally ran hundreds of runs in each configuration.)\\
By the way, with Win2k3 (and XP 64-bit, really the same system) you see much less "balancing" - a single-threaded app will stick to a CPU for much longer.
jt2110
Sep 5, 04:11 AM
Don't all wireless devices have to be approved by the FCC?
Might we get a preview of this device?
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned this.
Might we get a preview of this device?
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned this.
Andras5soul
Apr 25, 02:36 PM
Here's hoping my pre-unibody mbp lasts me until then!
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 06:55 PM
I know the bills add up quickly, but just how much does an active case cost? That's a lot of zeroes!
Not that much. Not 100 million smackers. Some seem to believe that patent and copyright lawsuits are slot machines that always pay off. Not so. You settle for big numbers when you think you're likely to lose. You fight when believe the case will be dismissed. Apple easily could have slugged this one out with Creative, and they would have, or settled for a token amount, if they thought they had a chance of prevailing. The result speaks for itself.
Not that much. Not 100 million smackers. Some seem to believe that patent and copyright lawsuits are slot machines that always pay off. Not so. You settle for big numbers when you think you're likely to lose. You fight when believe the case will be dismissed. Apple easily could have slugged this one out with Creative, and they would have, or settled for a token amount, if they thought they had a chance of prevailing. The result speaks for itself.
EricNau
Apr 25, 01:06 AM
It's interesting. Every single poster here clearly disagrees with your actions (which are undeniably illegal) and your justification (including your improper blame on the woman driving in front of you). And yet, it's everyone else that must be wrong, not you.
Like I said, it's interesting.
Like I said, it's interesting.
mambodancer
Aug 24, 10:44 AM
Sorry folks, but you act as if the Patent office was some kind of arbiter for what makes sense. It's not. The US patent office has granted patents for all kinds of nonsense: perpetual motion machines, exercise equipment of dubious value, healthcare devices that certainly don't work and...the peanut butter and jelly sandwich and toast (patent #6,080,436)!
The PB&J patent was finally rejected. Here's a link to the story.
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/04/children_rejoic.html
Bottom line is that patents are in no way any indication of a first, new, original, worthwhile, creative idea at all. It is simply a method of establishing some kind of legal protection and as such is probably outdated as a tool or should be.
The PB&J patent was finally rejected. Here's a link to the story.
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/04/children_rejoic.html
Bottom line is that patents are in no way any indication of a first, new, original, worthwhile, creative idea at all. It is simply a method of establishing some kind of legal protection and as such is probably outdated as a tool or should be.
know-it-all5
Sep 12, 04:23 PM
First and foremost, though i am repeating what others have said... this is still a 5g ipod... This update was VERY minor... I say expect an iphone at macworld 06, and ipod 6g somewhere in 1st quarter of 07 (maybe macworld).
GGJstudios
Mar 17, 10:01 PM
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd.
Prove otherwise.
There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer.
Name one tool that can detect a Mac OS X virus. Just one.
Prove otherwise.
There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer.
Name one tool that can detect a Mac OS X virus. Just one.
Kebabselector
Apr 30, 02:13 PM
Isn't there an aftermarket for this?
Not a real solution. Most people who want matte want the MBP type of option, no glass and real matte screen.
Not a real solution. Most people who want matte want the MBP type of option, no glass and real matte screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment