Mr. McMac
Apr 9, 10:39 PM
Most of the cars I've owned over the past 40 years have been stick
fabsgwu
Sep 1, 04:06 PM
I bet they can get rid of the chin with all that extra square footage behind the bigger screen. But then I'm no Jonathan Ives. :cool:
Umbongo
Mar 25, 11:40 AM
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
emotion
Nov 27, 03:24 PM
While Apple is targeting professionals and pro-sumers, they know they need to still compete. Their prices on laptops are WAY off.
The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.
The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.
jxyama
Mar 21, 06:14 PM
sorry to say, bud, but it won't matter much even if 100,000 signs an online petition...
apple is one of the healthier computer hardware companies out there and probably needs no "saving"...
and people aren't signing it for a reason... perhaps they don't agree with the petition to begin with?
apple is one of the healthier computer hardware companies out there and probably needs no "saving"...
and people aren't signing it for a reason... perhaps they don't agree with the petition to begin with?
Sarah Hastings
Oct 19, 01:39 AM
I think I am going to check out eBay�I saw few there a couple of months back.
Creative One
Mar 6, 06:35 AM
I'm almost there! 50k left to go!
ChazUK
Apr 26, 01:09 PM
Rovio's generic use of the word "App Store(s)" made me think about this issue when I watched the trailer with my daughter the other day.
If Apple retain the trademark, I wonder what they'll do to stop people and companies using it in this way?
If Apple retain the trademark, I wonder what they'll do to stop people and companies using it in this way?
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 27, 04:57 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
I dunno. I thought Consume Reports existed to INFORM consumers of good and bad things about consumer products and then that would help you make an informed decision based on that information. I never knew you were supposed to "rely on their advice" by buying one product and only one product because they told you to like some kind of freaking lemming. I don't buy a Toyota Camry just because they gave it a good review, but I do want to know if it has potential braking or accelerator pedal issues (whether caused by a mat or something else) before I buy it and that is helpful information to a normal person who wants to know the truth and not just marketing hype from Apple. If I wanted marketing hype, I would go to the Toyota web site, not Consumer Reports. I would think this sort of think would be obvious to most people, but then we have quite a lot of cantaloupes in this world that actually believe that Fox News actually is fair and unbiased and believe every bit of Republican propaganda nonsense that comes out of their mouths on that station so I guess you can't count on people having common sense or being able to judge anything with their own brains instead of having someone plant it there for them. :confused:
I dunno. I thought Consume Reports existed to INFORM consumers of good and bad things about consumer products and then that would help you make an informed decision based on that information. I never knew you were supposed to "rely on their advice" by buying one product and only one product because they told you to like some kind of freaking lemming. I don't buy a Toyota Camry just because they gave it a good review, but I do want to know if it has potential braking or accelerator pedal issues (whether caused by a mat or something else) before I buy it and that is helpful information to a normal person who wants to know the truth and not just marketing hype from Apple. If I wanted marketing hype, I would go to the Toyota web site, not Consumer Reports. I would think this sort of think would be obvious to most people, but then we have quite a lot of cantaloupes in this world that actually believe that Fox News actually is fair and unbiased and believe every bit of Republican propaganda nonsense that comes out of their mouths on that station so I guess you can't count on people having common sense or being able to judge anything with their own brains instead of having someone plant it there for them. :confused:
Daveismoney
Feb 6, 10:07 AM
just picked her up about a month ago, a little Christmas present to myself.. loving it
pjarvi
Jun 23, 09:17 AM
Since the iMac already has a camera built-in, they might just be jumping on the motion control bandwagon. That way you wouldn't have to physically have to touch the screen, and they wouldn't have to add any new hardware, just a software solution. Unless, they're adding additional sensors similar to Microsoft's Kinect device coming to the Xbox 360.
AppliedVisual
Nov 25, 06:50 PM
I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
The quad core CPUs in Xserve definitely make sense. However, I'm not sure what you're saying.. Apple started shipping Xserve on Nov. 1st with the dual-core Xeon CPUs and they're currently listed with 24hour shipping times.
ffakr
The quad core CPUs in Xserve definitely make sense. However, I'm not sure what you're saying.. Apple started shipping Xserve on Nov. 1st with the dual-core Xeon CPUs and they're currently listed with 24hour shipping times.
skiltrip
Oct 1, 07:51 AM
Its been almost a month now how come their aren't more cases now now?
Not sure. I do however, find it funny, that some of the major case manufacturers take so long to release cases. I realize the understanding is that Apple doesn't leak the specs until the day of the Keynote announcement. But, there were eBay sellers with silicone cases available the day of the Keynote (they may have even been up before, I didn't look) that fit perfectly. I bought some of them. So there ARE leaks in China, and the cheap case manufacturers get their hands on them successfully, so I don't know why the major manufacturers aren't privy to the same leaks.
Not sure. I do however, find it funny, that some of the major case manufacturers take so long to release cases. I realize the understanding is that Apple doesn't leak the specs until the day of the Keynote announcement. But, there were eBay sellers with silicone cases available the day of the Keynote (they may have even been up before, I didn't look) that fit perfectly. I bought some of them. So there ARE leaks in China, and the cheap case manufacturers get their hands on them successfully, so I don't know why the major manufacturers aren't privy to the same leaks.
surroundfan
Sep 5, 01:33 AM
I thought Core Solo production was winding down, so maybe Apple could buy 'em all and do a price-drop. :D
Maybe in another life ... :(
Better still, Apple could move to Duos and do a price drop... (I wish!) ;)
Maybe in another life ... :(
Better still, Apple could move to Duos and do a price drop... (I wish!) ;)
ahuman7341
Jul 19, 04:29 PM
Most critical applications to be out in september? wouldnt adobe fall into this category???
I was thinking the same things and didn't adobe say that their stuff would be out in md 2007?
I was thinking the same things and didn't adobe say that their stuff would be out in md 2007?
dguisinger
Nov 28, 02:24 PM
It may not be true that they broke even, it's just something I thought I heard on a tv interview...
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
RichP
Jan 1, 05:53 PM
Wow, only a week away...
nice post BlueVelvet Ive read it before, but it is always applicable
Here's hoping there is something completely new or unexpected released!
nice post BlueVelvet Ive read it before, but it is always applicable
Here's hoping there is something completely new or unexpected released!
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:04 PM
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Link2999
Sep 24, 01:47 PM
Something I noticed about my Grip Vue today. The back seems to be collecting quite a bit of germs (dirt, etc.). For those of you who use a Mighty Mouse, think about how that collects dirt, but on a case.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 01:17 PM
Just think of how high the resolution on a 42" screen would be like. 4800 x 3000? At least a dozen megapixels!
Hmm.. I don't think that's a valid resolution. The next 16:10 up is WQUXGA at 3840x2400 and if Apple go crazy, WHUXGA at a monstrous 7680x4800 (the benchmark in 2015 ;) ).
Conroe inside a new design is much more likely.
Much more likely according to who? Sorry but when two great sites like AppleInsider and MacOSXRumors agree 100% with each other, then it seems that it's almost certainly going to be that way.
Hmm.. I don't think that's a valid resolution. The next 16:10 up is WQUXGA at 3840x2400 and if Apple go crazy, WHUXGA at a monstrous 7680x4800 (the benchmark in 2015 ;) ).
Conroe inside a new design is much more likely.
Much more likely according to who? Sorry but when two great sites like AppleInsider and MacOSXRumors agree 100% with each other, then it seems that it's almost certainly going to be that way.
pixpixpix
Apr 21, 05:52 PM
To those laughing at this and pointing out that Android phones don't have a file recording your movements..
and
http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/04/21/its-not-just-the-iphone-android-stores-your-location-data-too/
and
http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/04/21/its-not-just-the-iphone-android-stores-your-location-data-too/
itcheroni
Jul 20, 04:50 AM
Switching is happening, even with the negative, false, disinformation posts on this site. The numbers will bear this our in the upcoming quarters. Apple at $54, Google @ $455, hmmm I wonder what I should invest in???
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 03:24 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment