DrDomVonDoom
Apr 11, 02:27 AM
I can only imagine Steve Jobs hunched over his desk like in 'Pirates of Silicon Valley" and screaming "YOUR STEALING FROM ME!!!!" lol.
Otherwise awesome news.
Otherwise awesome news.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:41 PM
I've heard about clovertown coming all along and have put off buying a Mac Pro. I'd much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work I do.Of course almost everyone here knows I'm with you. I was surprised that the Mac Pro would require such expensive RAM which really puts me off. So I'm hoping that the popularity of Mac Pro RAM will drive down RAM cost to us by the time the Clovertown Mac Pro ships.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:42 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
shawnce
Aug 31, 05:19 PM
I don't know.
Is he?
I thought he was Italian... :eek:
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
Is he?
I thought he was Italian... :eek:
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:29 PM
Yeah, we all knew this was coming. It will be interesting to see how quickly Apple responds to its competition and follows suit. Hopefully very soon, I'm eager to see what exactly Apple does, i.e. only updates the MBPs, updates the whole MacBook line, updates the Mini as well... :cool:
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
I think there's a better chance of Merom iMacs. We're talking about a system in which they underclock a mobility Radeon x1600 to make it quieter. Conroe makes sense in a regular desktop, but I don�t see it happening with the iMac.
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
I think there's a better chance of Merom iMacs. We're talking about a system in which they underclock a mobility Radeon x1600 to make it quieter. Conroe makes sense in a regular desktop, but I don�t see it happening with the iMac.
cere
Apr 14, 03:30 PM
I really hope Intel delays USB 3. I have a mid 2007 MBP, even though I use FW800, I have resorted to using my ExpressCard slot with an eSata adapter which is even faster than FW800. If anything, the difference will be made with the companies who make the external HDD to implement thunderbolt technology into their products. I just hate usb in general, I only use it for flash drives and my mouse.
Agreed. Concurrent support will favour USB3 due to familiarity. Device vendors will be the key here.
Agreed. Concurrent support will favour USB3 due to familiarity. Device vendors will be the key here.
danielwsmithee
Apr 25, 02:44 PM
But I fear what Apple has in mind is basically an entire range of Macbook Air laptops. The Air is a fine computer, no doubt, but it's not the portable desktop I want and never can be without supporting two drives and discrete graphics in one way or another.That is exactly what I envision for the next Mac Book Pro. Take a MacBook Air make it just thick enough to handle an additional 2.5" Hard Drive, dedicated graphics, and a high performance processor. Ditch the optical drive, make SSD+HD the standard configuration.
cgmpowers
May 3, 01:12 PM
The thing I'm most impressed with is the 2GB video card. I have the 2008 MacPro w/ 3.0 dual core xeon, 12 GB of ram, an ATI 1900 w/ 512 ram. I just purchased Portal 2 over the weekend and cannot run it as it doesn't meet the specs. I'll have to purchase a new video card. A bit depressing...
Chris Powers
Chris Powers
daneoni
Apr 25, 01:12 PM
Guessing it'll just be a lot thinner. Maybe SSD's or Flash storage instead of HD's. Perhaps we can kiss the Superdrive goodbye? Either way, curious to see what they have in store :) Bringing back the blackbook would be pretty cool too.
They already have that product...it's called the MacBook Air.
They already have that product...it's called the MacBook Air.
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.
tylersdad
Apr 4, 12:12 PM
Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
Yes, it makes perfect sense to use some form of non-lethal force when somebody is shooting at you with intent to kill. Did you read the article? The guard was fired upon.
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
Yes, it makes perfect sense to use some form of non-lethal force when somebody is shooting at you with intent to kill. Did you read the article? The guard was fired upon.
Don Kosak
Apr 30, 01:30 PM
Great news.
I wonder if the price for SSD storage will be more reasonable?
They have been "tweaking" this design a bit over the years, making it thiner, and reducing the size of the chin. (and going from Plastic to Aluminium if you really want to push it as technically, those early iMacs had the same design.)
I think a big redesign to a drafting table/upright convertible style iMac is somewhere in the future, but OS X Lion is probably not the OS it will be running.
- Don
I wonder if the price for SSD storage will be more reasonable?
They have been "tweaking" this design a bit over the years, making it thiner, and reducing the size of the chin. (and going from Plastic to Aluminium if you really want to push it as technically, those early iMacs had the same design.)
I think a big redesign to a drafting table/upright convertible style iMac is somewhere in the future, but OS X Lion is probably not the OS it will be running.
- Don
levitynyc
Sep 9, 11:43 AM
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous comparison. The only Mac you can reasonably compare the XPS 700 to is the Mac Pro, which has a lot more computing power for that kind of money.
My point is that with the new processors and RAM upgrades, the iMac is headed towards more powerful use that could potentially switch over a PC gamer. If you wanted to do some serious gaming on the 24" iMac you could....if not for the poor video card options.
Throw a dog a bone here and at least give us a 512MB option.
My point is that with the new processors and RAM upgrades, the iMac is headed towards more powerful use that could potentially switch over a PC gamer. If you wanted to do some serious gaming on the 24" iMac you could....if not for the poor video card options.
Throw a dog a bone here and at least give us a 512MB option.
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 22, 02:58 PM
Please bring back the 24"! 21" - too small. 27" - too big. 24" - just right!
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
kny3twalker
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
Windows are generic. More so than app store. Just took at your browser and see where it says open a new window. This is not specific to only windows OS.
I am old enough to remember the complaints of Microsoft calling there OS windows when they were not the first to create the concept.
RollTide
Mar 22, 05:58 PM
As I posted in another thread, Amazon is showing low stock. The uk store also seems low, another user saw that first.
I wish we had a separate site to weed through the ios and mac rumors. Just me?
I wish we had a separate site to weed through the ios and mac rumors. Just me?
Chundles
Sep 5, 02:00 PM
The biggest "movie related" release from Apple on that day down here will probably be an exclusive music video from Bob Dylan.
Carn Apple, get your finger out and get international TV shows up and running.
Carn Apple, get your finger out and get international TV shows up and running.
iMacZealot
Sep 15, 09:13 PM
If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
gri
Apr 22, 11:27 AM
I hope - but afraid it won't - there is a back lit keyboard re-introduced.
iMikeT
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
I think that this is a good thing. Hopefully, it will convince other studios to join the iTS for distribution. And on top of that, Apple can sell high(er) definition movies.
speakster
Aug 31, 03:06 PM
So, Leopard has some features that haven't been revealed yet.
Could one of them possibly be the rumor of having a Bit Torrent client built into the OS.....
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/rumor-os-x-leopard-to-have-bittorrent-client-for-itunes-store-170791.php
Which would make the possibility of downloading higher quality videos plausible....
Could one of them possibly be the rumor of having a Bit Torrent client built into the OS.....
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/rumor-os-x-leopard-to-have-bittorrent-client-for-itunes-store-170791.php
Which would make the possibility of downloading higher quality videos plausible....
2ndname
Apr 30, 04:22 PM
What's the deal with people wanting the matte version? Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind it to a noob like myself? Thanks in advance
DJMastaWes
Aug 28, 12:21 PM
This really doesn't matter. Apple will update stuff tomorrow. Steve likes to wait for tuesdays cuz he's a rockstar like that. :D
Apple announced the Intel iMac and MBP like 5-7 days after Yonah was brought out at the begining of Jan. It'll be announced tomorrow (75%) or next Tuesday (25%), but no later than that.
If your right i'll give you hugs untill you can''t breath!
Apple announced the Intel iMac and MBP like 5-7 days after Yonah was brought out at the begining of Jan. It'll be announced tomorrow (75%) or next Tuesday (25%), but no later than that.
If your right i'll give you hugs untill you can''t breath!
Kwill
Mar 30, 12:01 PM
Here's a novel thought. Why doesn't Microsoft create something, you know, novel?