APPLENEWBIE
Sep 5, 02:44 PM
It's Showtime. Obvious reference to movies. What do (consumers) want? What does apple like to sell? HARDWARE. Steve will introduce some sort of on-line movie service. I have no idea what it will be, other than different from other options. To me, the on-line movie store is not a bit sexy.
What will be sexy are the other three devices he will introduce that will use that service...
1) True Video iPod. With some sort of wireless transfer method. There is no point in on-line service (for apple) if it ain't mobile.
2) The Apple Movie Machine, probably looking a lot like a Mini, to interface wirelessly to your computer with your TV seamlessly, using an improved Front Row. It will have DVR capability and ability to work with streamed high quality video from iTunes movie store.
3) 23" iMac with a TV tuner, and the ability to pickup streamed movies from the ITunes movie store, and built-in DVR capacity upon which to view those nice movies.
What will be sexy are the other three devices he will introduce that will use that service...
1) True Video iPod. With some sort of wireless transfer method. There is no point in on-line service (for apple) if it ain't mobile.
2) The Apple Movie Machine, probably looking a lot like a Mini, to interface wirelessly to your computer with your TV seamlessly, using an improved Front Row. It will have DVR capability and ability to work with streamed high quality video from iTunes movie store.
3) 23" iMac with a TV tuner, and the ability to pickup streamed movies from the ITunes movie store, and built-in DVR capacity upon which to view those nice movies.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
3N16MA
Mar 30, 01:47 PM
But it is an "app store".
According to Microsoft it's a market. No one calls the local farmers market a store yet everyone knows you can purchase products there.
According to Microsoft it's a market. No one calls the local farmers market a store yet everyone knows you can purchase products there.
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:52 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
ckodonnell
Sep 14, 10:37 AM
Dell currently quotes 9-22. Or did yesterday when I placed an order.
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
Mikael
Sep 9, 10:21 AM
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
I've searched for address bus width for the Core 2 line, but haven't found anything. It is, however, not likely that Intel downgraded the width from the previous models, which would mean either a 36 or a 40 bit bus. Also note that AMD's K8 (Athlon 64, Sempron and Opteron) also feature a 40 bit address bus and not 64 as someone might think. I also think that the G5 uses a 40 or 42 bit address bus, so it's pretty much the same there too.
So, if Core 2 has a 40 bit bus (which is likely) you end up with 1TB of addressable memory space.
Also, Core 2 CPUs are fully capable of running 64 bit code. Whether the address bus is 64 bits wide or not hasn't got anything to do with the width of the internal data path and execution unit width.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
I've searched for address bus width for the Core 2 line, but haven't found anything. It is, however, not likely that Intel downgraded the width from the previous models, which would mean either a 36 or a 40 bit bus. Also note that AMD's K8 (Athlon 64, Sempron and Opteron) also feature a 40 bit address bus and not 64 as someone might think. I also think that the G5 uses a 40 or 42 bit address bus, so it's pretty much the same there too.
So, if Core 2 has a 40 bit bus (which is likely) you end up with 1TB of addressable memory space.
Also, Core 2 CPUs are fully capable of running 64 bit code. Whether the address bus is 64 bits wide or not hasn't got anything to do with the width of the internal data path and execution unit width.
gkarris
Apr 11, 01:11 PM
The US Government bailed out Wall Street and the Auto Industry. Then, they almost shut down themselves... :eek:
The US Government almost couldn't even bail itself out... :eek:
Yes, it is getting worse, you can tell, the media says we are no longer in a recession... ;)
Yes, my friends did find work, but they can barely make ends meet and a 1/2 car ride each way turned into a 1.5 hour car/train/walk each way.
They're not happy... (2 hours extra of commuting for a job where you need to whip out the credit card for essentials like food and gas).
It will definitely be interesting how things will churn out...
The US Government almost couldn't even bail itself out... :eek:
Yes, it is getting worse, you can tell, the media says we are no longer in a recession... ;)
Yes, my friends did find work, but they can barely make ends meet and a 1/2 car ride each way turned into a 1.5 hour car/train/walk each way.
They're not happy... (2 hours extra of commuting for a job where you need to whip out the credit card for essentials like food and gas).
It will definitely be interesting how things will churn out...
Hellhammer
Apr 14, 01:27 PM
So is TB actually included in the chipset or does it still need a separate controller? Sandy Bridge and Intel 6-series chipsets already support Thunderbolt "capability". In my ears this sounds like TB will not be included in the chipset which makes this piece of news more or less useless. USB 3.0 support has been known for months now.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:40 AM
It goes to show you what our legal system really is like. Kind of goes to show you that much of our legal system is nothing more than expensive babies fighting. Also goes to show you why our government is such a mess because guess what most of our political leaders are........ You guessed it LAWYERS. This is pretty much a world wide thing.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
CrackedButter
Sep 1, 11:40 AM
Its about time, I mentioned this when the G5 iMacs came out, its obvious that this is going to happen, its a natural development of the iMac line. The evidence was there when the Cinema Displays were announced, the monitor support could clearly take a few heavier weight.
Its good news though, if only to save money. Also...
You heard it here first, come on 30" iMac!
Its good news though, if only to save money. Also...
You heard it here first, come on 30" iMac!
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 09:29 AM
This is the chip to use in a (stop gap) gamer machine, but it needs to be fully 64 bit for 4+ gig of RAM, 4 slots of non-buffered ram, support SLI, be user upgradable, multiple video cards inside, 2 disk drives (stripping mode), lots of USB and Firewire ports in a new enclosure.
Just my opinion.
:D
Just my opinion.
:D
VenusianSky
Mar 30, 12:22 PM
There was a guy that I went to school with name Bill that had this crazy idea of programming his own operating system and calling it "Bill's Gates". I wonder if he could of trademark that? It was back in the Windows 95 days.
sushi
Sep 20, 08:51 AM
I think the HD DVD is out of control already.
Interesting that you say that.
For those of us who have enjoyed videos over the years, we've had the following formats:
- Beta
- VHS
- Super VHS
- CED
- LD, and it variants
- DVD
and now HD-DVD / Bluray
Maybe the key for the format change is to line the companies pockets!
Interesting that you say that.
For those of us who have enjoyed videos over the years, we've had the following formats:
- Beta
- VHS
- Super VHS
- CED
- LD, and it variants
- DVD
and now HD-DVD / Bluray
Maybe the key for the format change is to line the companies pockets!
Machead III
Sep 5, 03:20 PM
Of course Apple need to do more than just impress general Mac users like you guys. Like with the iPod, if they want big success, they're going to have to get to grips with an entirely new scene, culture even, and bring it's adherents something new.
As someone who considers film as influential in his upbringing as his family and friends even, I'm looking for Apple to honor the spirit of film rather than just crank out downloadable movies like the lack-luster businesses who suck all the art and atmosphere out of the DVD market.
Forget music, this is the big one. Apple are dealing with the most powerful art form on the planet, they'd better do it justice.
I'll reserve judgement until I see what they have to offer les fanatiques du cinema, but I'm optimistic.
As someone who considers film as influential in his upbringing as his family and friends even, I'm looking for Apple to honor the spirit of film rather than just crank out downloadable movies like the lack-luster businesses who suck all the art and atmosphere out of the DVD market.
Forget music, this is the big one. Apple are dealing with the most powerful art form on the planet, they'd better do it justice.
I'll reserve judgement until I see what they have to offer les fanatiques du cinema, but I'm optimistic.
tripjammer
Apr 28, 03:33 PM
Well MS has two games to play on:
1. Tablet/Phone
The tablet/phone is going to be a big deal. If they do well, they are going to generate good profits.
2. Operating System/ Office
Unless and until MS does something new under operating systems, throwing windows 8 is not going to make a big difference. Also, till the time Windows 8 comes out MS's profits are going to decrease.
Kinect is out/ Windows 7 is out - This side is gonna go down.
So till the time Windows 8 is ready MS has to count on the mobile business.
Nintendo is gonna kill them in the Console race. They need to come out with the XBox 720 within 6 months of Nintendo's new machine!
1. Tablet/Phone
The tablet/phone is going to be a big deal. If they do well, they are going to generate good profits.
2. Operating System/ Office
Unless and until MS does something new under operating systems, throwing windows 8 is not going to make a big difference. Also, till the time Windows 8 comes out MS's profits are going to decrease.
Kinect is out/ Windows 7 is out - This side is gonna go down.
So till the time Windows 8 is ready MS has to count on the mobile business.
Nintendo is gonna kill them in the Console race. They need to come out with the XBox 720 within 6 months of Nintendo's new machine!
mi5moav
Aug 31, 10:45 PM
I'm thinking of an Apple/Canon merger? I was hoping for a buyout of leica or kodak, but I think a Canon merger might work. We haven't seen any large mergers buyouts since HP/Compaq and something is going to happen soon. Though I don't know if this is true or not Steve Jobs and Canon have had close ties for nearly 15 years and I've noticed this recently with the Canon products being given first priority in there digital/video store. At one time Canon even invested something like $10 million into NEXT. Snapping(excuse the pun) Canon would help with a huge amount of patents and might be easier then starting from scratch with a camera or camcorder.
newagemac
Apr 11, 07:23 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Check out the Airframe and Airview apps in the App Store. They do what you want but unlike the Apple TV and Airport Express, you have to have the app open for the device to be recognized as an Airplay target device. Airview is free and Airframe costs a couple of bucks but it supports tv out which Airview does not. Neither support DRM content though.
But instead of using those apps, Apple already provides a solution in iOS 4.3 with iOS Home Sharing. It makes more sense in my opinion that way anyway. If you want to listen to music on computer with your mobile device it's usually because you have it in your hands which means a "pull" type solution like Home Sharing would be beneficial. A "push" type solution doesn't really make much sense unless you have your mobile device connected to a TV or some speakers. But then that's what the Apple TV and Airport Express are for.
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Check out the Airframe and Airview apps in the App Store. They do what you want but unlike the Apple TV and Airport Express, you have to have the app open for the device to be recognized as an Airplay target device. Airview is free and Airframe costs a couple of bucks but it supports tv out which Airview does not. Neither support DRM content though.
But instead of using those apps, Apple already provides a solution in iOS 4.3 with iOS Home Sharing. It makes more sense in my opinion that way anyway. If you want to listen to music on computer with your mobile device it's usually because you have it in your hands which means a "pull" type solution like Home Sharing would be beneficial. A "push" type solution doesn't really make much sense unless you have your mobile device connected to a TV or some speakers. But then that's what the Apple TV and Airport Express are for.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 14, 08:30 AM
Not sure why people would get excited about an iCamera. There are many excellent DSLRs out now from companies that have a lot more expertise in building cameras than Apple. I'd rather have a Canon Rebel XT or maybe that new Pentax.
Eidorian
Jul 20, 01:22 PM
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 12, 01:10 AM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
corywoolf
Sep 5, 03:32 PM
Showtime is owned by Viacom,who also owns the movie channel and a cable company.
Who also owns the trademark "Mighty Mouse", which Apple licensed. I think he might be onto something. More then likely, the product is called "Showtime".
Who also owns the trademark "Mighty Mouse", which Apple licensed. I think he might be onto something. More then likely, the product is called "Showtime".
macEfan
Aug 23, 08:42 PM
So Apple pays $100mil, and it sounds like Creative may be getting out of the iPod competition biz... and into the iPod accessory biz (which is probably more lucrative).
yeah, maybe apple had that planned or something:D but eek $100 million is a lot!
yeah, maybe apple had that planned or something:D but eek $100 million is a lot!
amac4me
Sep 14, 09:34 AM
Aperture update for sure.
Very good chance that a MacBook Pro update will be announced.
Very good chance that a MacBook Pro update will be announced.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 01:22 PM
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
No comments:
Post a Comment