lifeinhd
Mar 23, 06:59 PM
Just downloaded both mentioned in the article, thanks for the heads-up MR.
Typical, guilty until proven innocent, isn't that always the way.
Typical, guilty until proven innocent, isn't that always the way.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 01:50 AM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork.
The logo on the center of the record is an apple sliced in half. Again, it looks nothing like Apple's logo.
The logo on the center of the record is an apple sliced in half. Again, it looks nothing like Apple's logo.
Winni
Nov 14, 12:37 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Umbongo
Apr 30, 04:16 PM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
ready2switch
Aug 28, 04:06 PM
ah yes. just like they did with the eMac back in the day. that was popular... you know, not having a product to ship for weeks.
Isn't that how they introduced the MBP in January? Announced at MWSF and then not shipped until sometime in February? (I think the iMacs shipped right away, which could be a good "hint" that they could get conroe....if you like that sort of a parallel.)
Isn't that how they introduced the MBP in January? Announced at MWSF and then not shipped until sometime in February? (I think the iMacs shipped right away, which could be a good "hint" that they could get conroe....if you like that sort of a parallel.)
zin
Mar 22, 03:18 PM
Yay. This is what I've been waiting for.
Perhaps we will get a good GPU this time with at least 512 MB VRAM :eek: :rolleyes:
Perhaps we will get a good GPU this time with at least 512 MB VRAM :eek: :rolleyes:
cirus
Apr 19, 07:45 PM
Sometimes I laugh when I read this website.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.
Look up the thread "Your perfect 2012 Macbook pro," (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1122404) pretty much everyone who mentions USB wants USB 3.0. There is no reason not to include it. People don't want their peripherals to be useless several years down the road. Or have to buy an adapter.
I've heard so many people justify the price of a mac on the "you get what you pay for" well a cheap adapter is going to crap out on you sooner of later. And really, people buy high end devices to lug a bag of adapters around lets see (minidisplay port to DVI, HDMI, digital; Thunderbolt to USB 3.0, e-sata, other ports such as audio ports) That's 5 adapters, that needs a bag (and no these things are more than an inch).
I personally think that Thunderbolt will become popular (just as minidisplay is) but that it will take a while. I wish I had in on my computer. If its supported natively then it is very likely that it will become more common.
If you seriously think that they will deliberately not put USB 3.0 on their Ivy Bridge computers then there is no sense arguing with you. Why would they not? Its not that they have anything to lose?
Personally, I think that the reason they did not put in the refreshed Macbook pros is that it would require a separate PCI slot and take up space that they do not have.
As for future proofing, thunderbolt more than USB but there will always be a demand for USB. Currently the fastest SSD drives are way more than enough for the average user who does not need gigabyte files in 2 seconds. Speed is limited to the slowest component in the data chain which for many will be the hard drive. I mean most back up their data to a mechanical drive and not a SSD simply because of the cost, external SSD will become popular but these speeds aren't going to be needed for a while.
USB 2.0 is still being used and is adequate for many.
Really, the connector on your motherboard is capped at 6 gbps (sata 3), you are never going to get a faster speed than this on your hard drive on the new macbook pros. 10 gbps becomes sort of meaningless if you can only use a fraction.
So where is you 10 gbps going to go? Hard drive cannot deal with this. Wireless, you'll be lucky to get over 20 MB/s. Ethernet is only 1 gbps and that is assuming that the connection is being used fully, providers may limit this in reality to far less. Of course you could have 2 SSD drives but I don't think many are going to use this much data, at least in the usable life of the system.
Why have 1 when you can have both? Apple won't cut off the nose to spite the face. Of course they did do this with blu-ray (why not make it an option, don't justify this as "people don't want it" cause some do and not making it an option seems as a waste on those beautiful screens). Options are not going to hurt anyone.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 12:11 PM
...the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
But the current Core Duos are "mobile" processors right? :confused:
But the current Core Duos are "mobile" processors right? :confused:
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 02:36 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, someone reply to my post....
as a person who just purchased the last version of 5gen video ipod, this comes to me as quite a shock really.... i knew this was coming but actaully hoping that it was everything 'rumor' but turns out it's not.....
anyway, my point is:
WHY DIDN'T STEVE MENTION 30 GIG IPOD, WHILE MOST OF THE ATTENTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON 8O GIG SOLELY??
although 30 and 80 seem to share most of the new features which are obviously crap(game? who plays that? and search bar? i don't need that crap, too shabby, biatch)
but the thing is BATTERY, gosh
they've plugged about how their new 80 gen has total 20 hrs of battery life and 6.5 hrs of video play, but what about freaking 30???? I SERIOUSLY WANNA KNOW.
i've been to apple store and engadget for live broadcast, but there was no info whatsoever on 30's battery, other than its MAXIMUM battery was 14.... the thing i wanna know is its VIDEO MAXIMUM BATTERY.... is it, again 2 hours? i hope so!! cause i just bought this ol' **** at such higher price and now i feel totally duped. well it was my fault in the first place but i thought it was all RUMOR......................GAWD
as a person who just purchased the last version of 5gen video ipod, this comes to me as quite a shock really.... i knew this was coming but actaully hoping that it was everything 'rumor' but turns out it's not.....
anyway, my point is:
WHY DIDN'T STEVE MENTION 30 GIG IPOD, WHILE MOST OF THE ATTENTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON 8O GIG SOLELY??
although 30 and 80 seem to share most of the new features which are obviously crap(game? who plays that? and search bar? i don't need that crap, too shabby, biatch)
but the thing is BATTERY, gosh
they've plugged about how their new 80 gen has total 20 hrs of battery life and 6.5 hrs of video play, but what about freaking 30???? I SERIOUSLY WANNA KNOW.
i've been to apple store and engadget for live broadcast, but there was no info whatsoever on 30's battery, other than its MAXIMUM battery was 14.... the thing i wanna know is its VIDEO MAXIMUM BATTERY.... is it, again 2 hours? i hope so!! cause i just bought this ol' **** at such higher price and now i feel totally duped. well it was my fault in the first place but i thought it was all RUMOR......................GAWD
AndroidfoLife
Apr 22, 02:08 AM
This seems like apple did a very bad compromise. I am suspecting that apple will not allow other source music. It would be pretty hard to confirm if that is the song to give you access to the song on their online copy. I doubt they will do an unlimited access either.
3N16MA
Mar 30, 12:18 PM
you mean macdonalds?
No one refers to McDonald's as Burger Store. Their brand name is so strong that people actually say McDonald's because that logo and name is pretty much seared into everyone head.
No one refers to McDonald's as Burger Store. Their brand name is so strong that people actually say McDonald's because that logo and name is pretty much seared into everyone head.
d4rkc4sm
Apr 28, 04:04 PM
who'd thought this would ever happen back in 1997. seriously, fmita
Ampidire
Apr 22, 01:43 PM
I've decided the SB refresh on this machine will be my next purchase, it's perfect for me in school and I no longer need the powerhouse MBP I have now.
I just didn't wanna buy a C2D, the nVidia IGP is nice yes, but I don't game on my MBP as it is, so what do I have to lose other than weight..
I just didn't wanna buy a C2D, the nVidia IGP is nice yes, but I don't game on my MBP as it is, so what do I have to lose other than weight..
Hastings101
Apr 19, 11:47 AM
What's the point of these lawsuits, nothing ever comes from them lol. Publicity?
cadillaccactus
Sep 5, 12:51 PM
Gonna need a few more shares to make any money, but good effort. ;)
30 more shares. and dont be a dick. ;)
30 more shares. and dont be a dick. ;)
bbplayer5
Apr 4, 11:42 AM
and i was all like.. PEW PEW PEW
charque
Jan 15, 02:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
The big deal is that i do not want buggy, resource stealing software on my mac. Simple as that.
Do you run itunes or quicktime? Or possibly a web browser?
The big deal is that i do not want buggy, resource stealing software on my mac. Simple as that.
Do you run itunes or quicktime? Or possibly a web browser?
Yebubbleman
Apr 25, 04:51 PM
Herp derp. Im pretty sure there will be a minor spec bump as well, and exterior design in a laptop is a pretty important feature or a "function and should be taken in consideration just as well (or not even more) than a new "ixy procesor" and a "8650 gt mx" graphics card, which in most cases just serve as a hard on for spec geeks.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
Oh yeah, I'm bitter that we're not still using Titanium for the exterior of the Pro Mac laptop line. Clearly, I must, y'know, feel resentment for some silly reason for all of you people who, for some sillier reason are sick of the Unibody design. Yeah, 'cause I totally have emotions on reserve for inconsequential things like that. Man, get real.
Specs are what truly matter. If the chassis is designed to be sturdier, more rigid, and more durable, and easier to service than these models, that's a great upgrade. If it's only a stark cosmetic change, then that's not at all worth going nuts over, unless you, like many (but certainly not all) Apple customers, are superficial like that. Newer processors and better graphics DO matter as we use our computers for apps, and beyond using a freakin' web browser and running Word a lot of these apps demand the hardware to run them. And if they don't now, they will eventually. That's how computers work? Or are you still repping the Titanium PowerBook G4 yourself?
No I can't just get an Air. Not if I want a quad-core i7 dedicated graphics, an SSD boot drive and a 1TB HD for data. That sounds awfully "Pro" to me.
Aww man, poor you, having to put up with the optical drive at the cost of a 1TB hard drive (that you could easily get eight times the amount of via the Thunderbolt port). Life must suck. The optical drive must really be keeping you from getting lots of work (Macrumors forum trolling) done. Yeah, for you, they should kill it. You're absolutely right. Come on, if you want thinness and no optical, the Air is your machine; if you want Pro features (and granted, not all of them will serve YOU), get a MacBook Pro; but whining that the MacBook Pro has a feature that YOU don't find a use for, but someone else does, is about as selfish and as silly of an activity as they come.
why am i even responding you are clearly bitter and are writing purely from that bitterness.
Oh yeah, I'm bitter that we're not still using Titanium for the exterior of the Pro Mac laptop line. Clearly, I must, y'know, feel resentment for some silly reason for all of you people who, for some sillier reason are sick of the Unibody design. Yeah, 'cause I totally have emotions on reserve for inconsequential things like that. Man, get real.
Specs are what truly matter. If the chassis is designed to be sturdier, more rigid, and more durable, and easier to service than these models, that's a great upgrade. If it's only a stark cosmetic change, then that's not at all worth going nuts over, unless you, like many (but certainly not all) Apple customers, are superficial like that. Newer processors and better graphics DO matter as we use our computers for apps, and beyond using a freakin' web browser and running Word a lot of these apps demand the hardware to run them. And if they don't now, they will eventually. That's how computers work? Or are you still repping the Titanium PowerBook G4 yourself?
No I can't just get an Air. Not if I want a quad-core i7 dedicated graphics, an SSD boot drive and a 1TB HD for data. That sounds awfully "Pro" to me.
Aww man, poor you, having to put up with the optical drive at the cost of a 1TB hard drive (that you could easily get eight times the amount of via the Thunderbolt port). Life must suck. The optical drive must really be keeping you from getting lots of work (Macrumors forum trolling) done. Yeah, for you, they should kill it. You're absolutely right. Come on, if you want thinness and no optical, the Air is your machine; if you want Pro features (and granted, not all of them will serve YOU), get a MacBook Pro; but whining that the MacBook Pro has a feature that YOU don't find a use for, but someone else does, is about as selfish and as silly of an activity as they come.
skwert
Sep 13, 09:06 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
their amazing design and interface...the reason why people buy all their other stuff. not to mention the sexy idea of ichat mobile
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
their amazing design and interface...the reason why people buy all their other stuff. not to mention the sexy idea of ichat mobile
jafd
Apr 25, 04:41 PM
Haha. Silver. Collector's edition?
Athlete's edition, I reckon, given a piece of silver weighs around 4 times more than a piece of aluminum of the same volume.
Athlete's edition, I reckon, given a piece of silver weighs around 4 times more than a piece of aluminum of the same volume.
thisisahughes
Mar 23, 03:48 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
I hadn't quite looked at it like that.
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
I hadn't quite looked at it like that.
AlBDamned
Aug 23, 06:12 PM
You seem to be unfamiliar with our court system. This case could have dragged on for YEARS, and cost Apple a TON of money--possibly far more than 100 Million.
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Misplaced Mage
Sep 18, 05:58 PM
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
mdntcallr
Aug 23, 10:47 PM
yeah, but it isn't a bad deal. hell creative could have pulled a lawsuit, much like the lawsuit which almost shut down blackberry.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.
so... this is good. a win win. scenario. apple gets another big time vendor to sell products that accessorize apple's IPOD.