bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
archipellago
Apr 26, 04:51 PM
Actually, they are merging, and that's because of the huge debt that Porsche got due to trying to take over Volkswagen. (BTW, the current CEO of Porsche AG is from Volkswagen, that's not generally how you do it after you've taken over another company, more like what happens when you've lost.)
wanna re-check that sunshine..?
wanna re-check that sunshine..?
EDH667
Jan 25, 07:36 AM
Regarding using a case with the tom tom kit--I bought a casemate (comes shiny and somewhat rubberized) and it fits fine in my tomtom car kit.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
I have used the Case-Mate Barley-There and am currently using the Marware MicroShell with the TomTom car kit. They both work fine.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
I have used the Case-Mate Barley-There and am currently using the Marware MicroShell with the TomTom car kit. They both work fine.
emotion
Aug 2, 11:02 AM
I like this guy. He's being reasonable. However, I'd bet that Apple does NOT update any other Macs to Core 2. Yet. Save that for Expo Paris.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
TMay
Apr 21, 03:46 PM
Having dug around in my Mac liberally over 4 years, I was surprised they didn't crunch down the design yet. It's got a lot of room in there. Though the sleds and space aren't unwelcome, there are ways to compact all that and still have a great machine which is easy to access.
Past dual processors required a lot of heat sink fin surface to keep the G5's (remember water cooling?) and later Xeon's cool while keeping the noise level down. Now with plentiful 2 1/2 inch form factor SSD's available, and 32nm Xeon's on the way, heat will be less of a problem, heat sinks can be less bulky and Apple can maintain low noise in a very desirable 3U package.
Thunderbolt eases the RAID requirements of pro's by offloading to third party products as well as enable improved peripheral connection.
Seems like a natural evolution to me. Hoping for Xeon E5-2600 octo but I'll take whatever arrives Q4.
Past dual processors required a lot of heat sink fin surface to keep the G5's (remember water cooling?) and later Xeon's cool while keeping the noise level down. Now with plentiful 2 1/2 inch form factor SSD's available, and 32nm Xeon's on the way, heat will be less of a problem, heat sinks can be less bulky and Apple can maintain low noise in a very desirable 3U package.
Thunderbolt eases the RAID requirements of pro's by offloading to third party products as well as enable improved peripheral connection.
Seems like a natural evolution to me. Hoping for Xeon E5-2600 octo but I'll take whatever arrives Q4.
treblah
Aug 3, 01:07 AM
But it's perfectly acceptable to round 1.67 down too, it's half way between 1.5 and 2. Also depends on the price of a Sidcrome socket set.
I'll believe this 2x battery life bollocks when I see the results from the labs, not some chintzy marketing ploy by Intel.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Multimedia, how is "twice the battery life" and "two times the battery life" different?
I'll believe this 2x battery life bollocks when I see the results from the labs, not some chintzy marketing ploy by Intel.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Multimedia, how is "twice the battery life" and "two times the battery life" different?
Transporteur
Apr 27, 03:39 PM
..so at the BOTTOM of the case there is cool air (at least cooler then on top, since hot air rises), that means if the PSU is on the bottom it gets cool air and expells hot hair out the back of the case (NOT inside the case, meaning NO hot air coming out of the PSU back will stay in the case and get things even hotter).
Since the Mac Pro has separate compartments for the processors, extension cards and PSU / optical drives, it doesn't matter where the PSU is whatsoever!
Since the Mac Pro has separate compartments for the processors, extension cards and PSU / optical drives, it doesn't matter where the PSU is whatsoever!
Moyank24
May 3, 08:53 PM
i second this motion. we could also split and move to and search two rooms, but it's probably best to wait for at least one up-level before we split.
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
the world is flat thomas friedman. Thomas Friedman#39;s book, The; Thomas Friedman#39;s book, The. animatedude. Apr 6, 12:26 PM
Thomas Friedman showed us that
Friedman and his flat earth
the world is flat thomas friedman. The World is Open: Now,; The World is Open: Now,. mrsir2009. Apr 19, 02:47 PM. Hey leave Samsung alone!
The World Is Flat:
The world is getting flattened
the world is flat by thomas
For a few pages Friedman and
book the World is Flat is
Since the world is flat,
“The World is Flat” author
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
drummondi
Sep 15, 11:10 PM
I've just been wanting one for so long, and all I've been waiting for is a processor trade-out, that I'll be happy with just that. Of course I'll be quite please if they implement the easy access HD bay. Better still, a better gfx card would make me pee my pants a little.
I think you should go get your prostate checked.
I think you should go get your prostate checked.
wclyffe
Nov 8, 09:43 AM
I'm really sorry but I couldn't resist correcting. :D After I was halfway through the video I thought "why the heck don't I understand this if it's supposed to be German?" It was Danish. :D
Ooops...sorry. I turned the volume down almost immediately and didn't listen carefully enough! Thanks!
Ooops...sorry. I turned the volume down almost immediately and didn't listen carefully enough! Thanks!
Erasmus
Aug 4, 07:38 PM
Looking closer, I can immediately see how they squeeze it into both of these computers...the trackpad isn't in the center of the laptop. How freaking messed up is that? They slid it over the to the left so that the optical drive could fit. That would bug the heck out of me.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
ValSalva
May 7, 12:04 PM
Could Apple be tired of offering support for MobileMe? It must be an expensive pain in the butt costing more than they make from selling it. Maybe if it were free they would drop much or all of the support leaving it to an online manual or something. It could simplify things for Apple leaving them to concentrate on more profitable areas.
justflie
May 7, 10:36 AM
Yes please. The move makes sense given the Windows Live stuff MS is doing.
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 03:34 PM
I'm surprised it's taken this long, to be honest: I've thought for a long time that Samsung's phones in particular are pretty much a blatant rip-off of Apple's industrial design and user interface.
Indeed, the haters will scream and rant about this lawsuit, but Samsung has a special knack for making their devices look exactly like Apple's equivalents.
Indeed, the haters will scream and rant about this lawsuit, but Samsung has a special knack for making their devices look exactly like Apple's equivalents.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 10:34 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
iPad 3 to be a small update like iPad 2? I wouldn't doubt it with the lack of competition.
The iPad 2 is thinner, faster and has more memory, how can you call that a small update. They could not double the resolution of the screen due to a lack of screens of that scale. They would only be able to sell a few thousand and the cost per unit would be in the 10,000 range.
iPad 3 to be a small update like iPad 2? I wouldn't doubt it with the lack of competition.
The iPad 2 is thinner, faster and has more memory, how can you call that a small update. They could not double the resolution of the screen due to a lack of screens of that scale. They would only be able to sell a few thousand and the cost per unit would be in the 10,000 range.
mholtz2323
Apr 20, 09:15 AM
If this news is true, then there must be a total revamp of iOS. I don't mind if the look of the phone stays the same (even though a larger screen wouldn't hurt) but it's more what you can do with it. New notification system, maybe live icons, file system?
I am hyped for the iOS event rather than the new fall iPhone event.
I am hyped for the iOS event rather than the new fall iPhone event.
celticpride678
Apr 9, 07:57 PM
The answer is 2, not 288 (it can't be that)
Following PEMDAS (Parenthesis, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction):
9+3=12
12*2=24
48/24=2
2 is the final answer.
Following PEMDAS (Parenthesis, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction):
9+3=12
12*2=24
48/24=2
2 is the final answer.
Full of Win
Apr 23, 07:03 PM
Resolution is a function of both pixel count and screen size. While there were less pixels on the iPhone screen, it had "higher resolution" in the form of higher DPI ;)
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
However, other times, I've seen it resolution (in a computer context) linked to PPI as well. Its just depends on who your are talking to.
iLilana
Apr 23, 08:51 PM
we wont see it in macs until mid 2012
GoodWatch
Mar 29, 04:29 PM
Yes, very unfortunate. Whilst millions are fighting for food every day, we are worrying about the battery in a superfluous gadget. Count your blessings, not the number of gadgets.
Brick
Sep 16, 09:36 PM
It is always bad practice to CTO a machine, as it is if there are no faults with it you are not entitled to send it back...
Yeah, but it's also the only way to get a 7200 rpm hard drive. I've read things about the hard drives not being user replaceable. Now I've taken apart several old Thinkpads and replaced motherboards and even the screens, but there warranties were up. I don't feel like voiding the warranty on my Mac.
I also think that this return policy is rather asinine. As another user stated, there are only 3 options to customize. Dell machines are highly configurable and they will refund you (minus 15% restocking fee though).
Yeah, but it's also the only way to get a 7200 rpm hard drive. I've read things about the hard drives not being user replaceable. Now I've taken apart several old Thinkpads and replaced motherboards and even the screens, but there warranties were up. I don't feel like voiding the warranty on my Mac.
I also think that this return policy is rather asinine. As another user stated, there are only 3 options to customize. Dell machines are highly configurable and they will refund you (minus 15% restocking fee though).
wildmac
Aug 11, 10:49 AM
I'm waiting until revB MacBooks anyway, but it's nice to hear that Apple will aggresively upgrade the CPUs.
But if you think about it, they have to. Because Dell and every other PC vendor will be using the latest and greatest from Intel, so Apple will need to as well.
If they can drop in the newer chip without raising the price, go for it! :D
But if you think about it, they have to. Because Dell and every other PC vendor will be using the latest and greatest from Intel, so Apple will need to as well.
If they can drop in the newer chip without raising the price, go for it! :D
citizenzen
Apr 18, 07:52 PM
I'm not against tax increases as long as the country is using it as a last resort.
What constitutes being a "last resort"?
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
What constitutes being a "last resort"?
It makes more sense to me to put in clauses that reverse tax increases once a goal has been reached.
Use all the tools in the tool chest to solve the problem.
alent1234
Apr 25, 10:56 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
iOS uses services from a company called Skyhook to help with location tracking. they use GPS and wifi access points to pinpoint locations faster than GPS.
a lot of android phones used to use it as well but in 2.1 or 2.2 google made it very hard to use anything except google for location. this is why a lot of android phones have slow GPS or it doesn't work as well indoors.
if the data is sent to anyone it's probably to skyhook to improve their service. or maybe apple is doing something similar and building their own location database. do you really think that every time you use GPS it really sends a signal to outer space?
iOS uses services from a company called Skyhook to help with location tracking. they use GPS and wifi access points to pinpoint locations faster than GPS.
a lot of android phones used to use it as well but in 2.1 or 2.2 google made it very hard to use anything except google for location. this is why a lot of android phones have slow GPS or it doesn't work as well indoors.
if the data is sent to anyone it's probably to skyhook to improve their service. or maybe apple is doing something similar and building their own location database. do you really think that every time you use GPS it really sends a signal to outer space?