antmarobel
Apr 1, 03:15 PM
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
w00master
Dec 30, 10:11 AM
I think a lot of you are expecting way too much on the "iTV" and will be very disappointed when it gets released.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
hoveowl
Feb 6, 08:01 AM
Here in the upper midwest, we're having a nasty winter. However in a couple of months it'll be warm enough to get the top down.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 6, 03:49 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
peestandingup
Jul 16, 06:54 PM
That's only because one of the biggest brands keeps using it. I honestly can't think of anything Sony doesn't make that uses MS besides card readers.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
Yup. Plus, Sony has LOTS of consumer based digital cameras on the market. Most normal people are still new to digital cameras, so they see a bunch of Sony's on sale at Best Buy & they're like "Oh, Sony. I heard they make good cameras." So, they buy one & the salesman says "Hey, you need a memory stick with that." Customer pays it without really looking at other options & Sony just sold to another noob sucker.
Thats why Memory Stick is so popular with average consumers, but not with serious amateurs & pros. They know better.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
Yup. Plus, Sony has LOTS of consumer based digital cameras on the market. Most normal people are still new to digital cameras, so they see a bunch of Sony's on sale at Best Buy & they're like "Oh, Sony. I heard they make good cameras." So, they buy one & the salesman says "Hey, you need a memory stick with that." Customer pays it without really looking at other options & Sony just sold to another noob sucker.
Thats why Memory Stick is so popular with average consumers, but not with serious amateurs & pros. They know better.
Multimedia
Jul 14, 08:51 AM
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!Gee I hope you're right. Quad MacIntels For Under $3k Would Be A Miracle. Thanks for the heads up. :rolleyes:
calcvita
May 3, 03:46 AM
apple needs to do something about this whole uninstallation process. apps like appcleaner exist and they do exist for a very good reason. if i uninstall an app, i want it to completely be gone.
and what if you have a corrupted .plist file which causes the application to misbehave? by simply drag & drop the app into the trashcan leaves its associated files untouched and re-installing the app won't fix the problem.
on many troubleshooting guides a very common suggestion is to remove the preference file, located in the user (in most cases) library folder, but in lion this folder is hidden and if you ask me, this will confuse newbies even more. i'm sure there will be comments like "but i don't have a library folder" and so on.
and what if you have a corrupted .plist file which causes the application to misbehave? by simply drag & drop the app into the trashcan leaves its associated files untouched and re-installing the app won't fix the problem.
on many troubleshooting guides a very common suggestion is to remove the preference file, located in the user (in most cases) library folder, but in lion this folder is hidden and if you ask me, this will confuse newbies even more. i'm sure there will be comments like "but i don't have a library folder" and so on.
hyperpasta
Sep 1, 02:32 PM
I, for one, think the iMac and Mac Mini will get Merom due to their form factors, and a yet to be announced minitower will get Conroe (just ask AidenShaw).
But that's not true! If Apple puts in Merom, I want to see it even thinner... the very same case held a G5, much more demanding than Conroe, as of last October.
But that's not true! If Apple puts in Merom, I want to see it even thinner... the very same case held a G5, much more demanding than Conroe, as of last October.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
AP_piano295
Mar 21, 12:05 PM
But if there were no army ants in addition to worker ants, the colony would have never made it.
Your making the assumption that human beings are "surviving" we haven't been around for very long.
Humans as organisms have a distressing habit of overusing our resources, building weapons so dangerous that they put our very existence at risk...etc.
I think when evolution made us it crafted a loser...but only time will tell.
Your making the assumption that human beings are "surviving" we haven't been around for very long.
Humans as organisms have a distressing habit of overusing our resources, building weapons so dangerous that they put our very existence at risk...etc.
I think when evolution made us it crafted a loser...but only time will tell.
Link2999
Sep 11, 05:39 PM
http://www.daydeal.com/product.php?productid=46023
That one looks decent. It's also on amazon in black or blue and comes with a screen protector, but does not have free shipping (~$6 for shipping).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042L9J4G/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001FWYXD2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=159BBYV8FRJJCKH8WBHH (Includes Mirror Screen Protector)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042LHDPI/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001FWYXD2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=159BBYV8FRJJCKH8WBHH (Includes Clear Screen Protector)
I'm currently holding off for a case that protects more than just the back.
That one looks decent. It's also on amazon in black or blue and comes with a screen protector, but does not have free shipping (~$6 for shipping).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042L9J4G/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001FWYXD2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=159BBYV8FRJJCKH8WBHH (Includes Mirror Screen Protector)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042LHDPI/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001FWYXD2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=159BBYV8FRJJCKH8WBHH (Includes Clear Screen Protector)
I'm currently holding off for a case that protects more than just the back.
Constable Odo
Mar 25, 04:46 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Vision, people. Vision.
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Otaillon
Jan 9, 08:58 AM
I was finally able to take my own pics of my just acquired '88 BMW 325is with M50B25TU engine swap. Darn this car is quick and handles so very well.
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
This car is just perfect! Congratulations on the new purchase!
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
This car is just perfect! Congratulations on the new purchase!
EagerDragon
Nov 28, 11:42 AM
Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
I disagree, take the price of a mini, add a good 17" monitor (4:3 (but not a super cheap one)) then compare the price to the 17" iMac. Not much difference and the iMac has better everything.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 6, 08:48 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
Core Duo prices will decrease soon (October or so), so Apple will probably have a price decrease then. Additionally, it may wait to put merom in its Macbook lineup, and instead have a price decrease there too...
Core Duo prices will decrease soon (October or so), so Apple will probably have a price decrease then. Additionally, it may wait to put merom in its Macbook lineup, and instead have a price decrease there too...
.jpg "six flags magic mountain")
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 03:50 PM
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
RaceTripper
Jan 31, 04:27 PM
imo, it needs deep dish wheels.. (or ronal turbo's)
still it's a nice ride non the less!Deep dish wheels are great, if they don't stick out the wheel wells from exaggerated width like a ghetto whip.
still it's a nice ride non the less!Deep dish wheels are great, if they don't stick out the wheel wells from exaggerated width like a ghetto whip.
jon1987
Apr 3, 06:25 AM
They always find a way to zoom in the screen and make it look nicer than what it actually is. The resolution is too grainy.
I am spoiled by the iPhone 4 display.
Six Flags Magic Mountain
I am spoiled by the iPhone 4 display.
iPhone1
Feb 8, 10:58 AM
Wave hi to me as I pass you on the freeway :)
toddybody
Apr 19, 11:56 AM
Just because 256 is 'perfect' for you does not mean it is perfect for everyone else. I need 500GB SSD. External drive solutions are just way to slow compared to internal SSD. The SSD upgrade on my Laptop was the best upgrade ever, now I want an 27'' iMac with 500GB SSD and lots of memory.
500GB of SSM ? Holey Moley Daddy Warbucks.
PS: you should check out the new PCI SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227581), when they start making external PCI enclosures for "ThunderCat"...youll be golden buddy:)
500GB of SSM ? Holey Moley Daddy Warbucks.
PS: you should check out the new PCI SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227581), when they start making external PCI enclosures for "ThunderCat"...youll be golden buddy:)
flashcutter
Apr 12, 10:40 PM
Because Apple says "Tape is Dead" doesn't make it true...just like Blu-Ray isn't gone. So that begs the question--is there tape output support (machine interfacing, et al) for FCX?
kahkityoong
Apr 3, 10:59 AM
the iPad does nothing useful
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
One of my patients has locked in syndrome, a condition in which he could only move his eyes. Over a year he regained use of his right hand. The iPad has given him a new lease of life - his voice, entertainment, etc. He would disagree with your idiotic statement.
MacNewsFix
Apr 12, 11:18 PM
Because Apple says "Tape is Dead" doesn't make it true...just like Blu-Ray isn't gone. So that begs the question--is there tape output support (machine interfacing, et al) for FCX?
If you are talking HDCAM SR, the one factory where it was produced is located in Sendai and was destroyed in the recent tsunami. Nobody knows how soon the factory will be back up, but likely no time soon. 10 tapes were recently sold on Ebay for $5000. The general consensus is the recent tragedy will accelerate the death of tape.
If you are talking HDCAM SR, the one factory where it was produced is located in Sendai and was destroyed in the recent tsunami. Nobody knows how soon the factory will be back up, but likely no time soon. 10 tapes were recently sold on Ebay for $5000. The general consensus is the recent tragedy will accelerate the death of tape.
hvfsl
Aug 16, 08:09 AM
I didnt even think about the wii.... :eek: I still dont see why nintendo and apple cant get in bed together, they both would like to see M$ fail, and they both could profit from a aliance, just imagine, pluging the ipod into the wii and then shopping for music on the wii... :cool:
Well there are rumors that you will be able to download old nintendo games onto the new iPod.
Well there are rumors that you will be able to download old nintendo games onto the new iPod.
