MacRumors
Aug 5, 03:23 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
With the 2006 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) quickly approaching, the Mac rumor scene has been buzzing with rumors and reports. As usual, MacRumors provides this Rumor Roundup as a summary of major rumors circulating around the Mac Web before the big event. In last year's WWDC roundup, we summarized the possibility of an Intel-based Mac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050605001340.shtml). Readers should remember that it was only a year ago that Apple first announced they would be switching to the Intel platform.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)
Apple has already announced that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be discussed and demonstrated at WWDC 2006. In fact, a recent slip-up (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060803151315.shtml) on Apple's developers pages indicates that Apple will be distributing a Developer's Preview of Leopard at WWDC.
Detailed information about Leopard, however, has been very limited. Very few reliable sources of information have come forward. The earliest rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060324092148.shtml) pointed to Virtualization software to be built into Leopard, but this was flatly denied (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060709120049.shtml) by Phil Schiller.
Job postings (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060126125042.shtml), Patent applications (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060314174322.shtml) and Page 2 rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/20051021014014.shtml) point to a focus on updating Finder with extensive and improved integration with Spotlight. This has even been the topic of some presumed fake (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060804154559.shtml) screenshots.
Perhaps the most corroborated claims are ones of Apple's iChat 4.0 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060628195853.shtml). Appleinsider claimed that iChat 4.0 will incorporate the ability to call traditional phone lines much like existing Voice over IP services, with similar reports elsewhere on the web.
While MacOSXRumors have offered a list of other possible features: virtual desktops (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802154741.shtml), collaborative features (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609041938.shtml), tabbed iChat (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/08/05/more-on-leopard-revamped-ical-tabbed-chat-improved-developer-tools-and-more/), the reliability of this source is not entirely certain.
Mac Pro
The Intel-update to the PowerMac line remains highly anticipated. The first hints at a name-change came in January 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060130215832.shtml) when Apple was revealed to have trademarked the term "Mac Pro". This was largely dismissed until Steve Jobs revealed the plan to change the name of the existing PowerBook and iBook lines to "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro". Meanwhile, we received early confirmation in May (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060531215206.shtml) that the Mac Pro was indeed targeted for release at WWDC 2006.
In July (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml), Appleinsider felt confident that Apple had chosen the Woodcrest (dual-core Xeon) process for use in the upcoming Mac Pros. While similar to the recently released Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in architecture, the Woodcrest processors allow for multi-processor configurations which have been a feature of the high end PowerMacs. Meanwhile, ThinkSecret believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that the Mac Pro will instead use the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips that were recently released. One Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802151736.shtml) claimed Apple would incorporate both Conroe and Woodcrest into different Mac Pro models, but the validity of this information has been cast in serious doubt.
Other features also rumored include substantially different (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) enclosures, dual optical drives (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060714150350.shtml) and an Intel-designed motherboard (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051227133503.shtml).
iPhone
Despite ongoing unsubstantiated claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml) that the iPhone will be released soon, there has been very little credible evidence that the iPhone will be seen at WWDC.
iPod
iPod rumors are more difficult to pin down, as iPod rumors have been circulating in full force for months. Rumors of a full video iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060119104515.shtml) started in early but peaked (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060309183950.shtml) in late March due to Apple's impending 30th anniversary. Subsequent rumors of video iPod delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060413131333.shtml) and difficult Hollywood negotiations (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060621163959.shtml) have pushed off the release further, with one analyst (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802114855.shtml) believing September-October to be a more likely timeframe. In July, however, ThinkSecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060718164759.shtml) had mentioned the possibility of iPod nano updates at WWDC.
Coverage
Steve Jobs will present the Keynote address starting at 10am Pacific Time on Monday August 7th. MacRumors.com will provide live text-transcript coverage of the event on MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/). The MacRumorsLive system uses the latest web technologies to efficiently provide dynamic text updates.
Stay tuned, as last minute leaks are not unusual in the final moments before an event.
With the 2006 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) quickly approaching, the Mac rumor scene has been buzzing with rumors and reports. As usual, MacRumors provides this Rumor Roundup as a summary of major rumors circulating around the Mac Web before the big event. In last year's WWDC roundup, we summarized the possibility of an Intel-based Mac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050605001340.shtml). Readers should remember that it was only a year ago that Apple first announced they would be switching to the Intel platform.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)
Apple has already announced that Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be discussed and demonstrated at WWDC 2006. In fact, a recent slip-up (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060803151315.shtml) on Apple's developers pages indicates that Apple will be distributing a Developer's Preview of Leopard at WWDC.
Detailed information about Leopard, however, has been very limited. Very few reliable sources of information have come forward. The earliest rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060324092148.shtml) pointed to Virtualization software to be built into Leopard, but this was flatly denied (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060709120049.shtml) by Phil Schiller.
Job postings (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060126125042.shtml), Patent applications (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060314174322.shtml) and Page 2 rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/20051021014014.shtml) point to a focus on updating Finder with extensive and improved integration with Spotlight. This has even been the topic of some presumed fake (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060804154559.shtml) screenshots.
Perhaps the most corroborated claims are ones of Apple's iChat 4.0 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060628195853.shtml). Appleinsider claimed that iChat 4.0 will incorporate the ability to call traditional phone lines much like existing Voice over IP services, with similar reports elsewhere on the web.
While MacOSXRumors have offered a list of other possible features: virtual desktops (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802154741.shtml), collaborative features (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609041938.shtml), tabbed iChat (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/08/05/more-on-leopard-revamped-ical-tabbed-chat-improved-developer-tools-and-more/), the reliability of this source is not entirely certain.
Mac Pro
The Intel-update to the PowerMac line remains highly anticipated. The first hints at a name-change came in January 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060130215832.shtml) when Apple was revealed to have trademarked the term "Mac Pro". This was largely dismissed until Steve Jobs revealed the plan to change the name of the existing PowerBook and iBook lines to "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro". Meanwhile, we received early confirmation in May (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060531215206.shtml) that the Mac Pro was indeed targeted for release at WWDC 2006.
In July (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060711225142.shtml), Appleinsider felt confident that Apple had chosen the Woodcrest (dual-core Xeon) process for use in the upcoming Mac Pros. While similar to the recently released Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips in architecture, the Woodcrest processors allow for multi-processor configurations which have been a feature of the high end PowerMacs. Meanwhile, ThinkSecret believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that the Mac Pro will instead use the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) chips that were recently released. One Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802151736.shtml) claimed Apple would incorporate both Conroe and Woodcrest into different Mac Pro models, but the validity of this information has been cast in serious doubt.
Other features also rumored include substantially different (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) enclosures, dual optical drives (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060714150350.shtml) and an Intel-designed motherboard (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051227133503.shtml).
iPhone
Despite ongoing unsubstantiated claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml) that the iPhone will be released soon, there has been very little credible evidence that the iPhone will be seen at WWDC.
iPod
iPod rumors are more difficult to pin down, as iPod rumors have been circulating in full force for months. Rumors of a full video iPod (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060119104515.shtml) started in early but peaked (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060309183950.shtml) in late March due to Apple's impending 30th anniversary. Subsequent rumors of video iPod delays (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060413131333.shtml) and difficult Hollywood negotiations (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060621163959.shtml) have pushed off the release further, with one analyst (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802114855.shtml) believing September-October to be a more likely timeframe. In July, however, ThinkSecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060718164759.shtml) had mentioned the possibility of iPod nano updates at WWDC.
Coverage
Steve Jobs will present the Keynote address starting at 10am Pacific Time on Monday August 7th. MacRumors.com will provide live text-transcript coverage of the event on MacRumorsLive.com (http://www.macrumorslive.com/). The MacRumorsLive system uses the latest web technologies to efficiently provide dynamic text updates.
Stay tuned, as last minute leaks are not unusual in the final moments before an event.
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
Carlson-online
Nov 29, 09:03 AM
Play it over the weekend - My biggest problem is theres nothing ground breaking about it. Kind of "more of the same" but with updated graphics (VERY good graphics mind you). My mate Jason wrote a pretty fair review, although some people REALLY didn't like it. It's a shame people cant write honest and fair reviews these days without people moaning and saying "why didnt it get 10/10 merrrrrr" - See Gran Turismo 5 Review (http://gamestyle.com/reviews/2012/gran-turismo-5/)
doctor-don
Apr 27, 10:43 AM
I'm glad they're fixing this "bug"
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Commenting on it officially is not the same as "found" it.
But their response is utter crap. They know it - and now everyone knows it.
As reports came out over a year ago about this - it's only after this tremendous bad press that they "found" it. Mhhhmmmm sure.
Commenting on it officially is not the same as "found" it.
saving107
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
I purchased a Xoom over the weekend it's a great device, a little heavy, but very awesome for its first pass. I used to own an iPad 1, gave it away, didn't want an iPad 2. Why do I need two devices of the same OS where the UI was designed for the iPhone (smaller device) to begin with?
hairstyles long hair with
hairstyles for long hair with
long hair layers cut.
hairstyles for long hair with
hairstyle with long hair
long hair with angs and
long hair with angs and
hairstyles for long hair with
haircuts long hair with angs
hairstyles for long hair with
long haircuts with layers
hairstyles for long hair with
haircuts long hair with angs
hairstyles for long hair with
ergle2
Aug 27, 07:41 PM
HI!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
From the benchmarks I've seen, the 3000/X3000 stuff (the 965 integrated graphics) is *slower* than the 945 integrated graphics. The only advantage it offers is SM 3.0 (pixel shaders), which are required for Vista compliance -- and that nice little sticker that all new PC systems will want for this holiday season. I wouldn't consider it an upgrade.
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
From the benchmarks I've seen, the 3000/X3000 stuff (the 965 integrated graphics) is *slower* than the 945 integrated graphics. The only advantage it offers is SM 3.0 (pixel shaders), which are required for Vista compliance -- and that nice little sticker that all new PC systems will want for this holiday season. I wouldn't consider it an upgrade.
jholzner
Jul 27, 03:16 PM
Nice news from intel, good for WWDC ...
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
... Apple will probably announce right before, since SJ said long ago no hard announcements at WWDC.
Of course he reverses A LOT :eek:
Can you show me where he said that? I don't recall hearing that his year. In the past I recall them stating that but it was only for the particular WWDC not a blanket statement. They intro'd the G5 Powermac at a WWDC.
emptyCup
Aug 5, 06:35 PM
Xserve Pro (uuuuggghhh!!!... must. remain. Xserve)
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
Moyank24
Apr 27, 12:02 PM
I'm not a birther. But I would love to know why the certificate looks new when the president is nearly 50. Now I'm about five months older than he, my original birth certificate has faded. The certificate he produced clearly isn't the original. Or if it is the original, it's astoundingly well-preserved.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 27, 02:00 PM
Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? :rolleyes: Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.
What difference does it make if virtually no consumer software is effected by 64-bit processors, even now?
What difference does it make if virtually no consumer software is effected by 64-bit processors, even now?
4God
Jul 14, 11:07 PM
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day!
8 cores, yeah you can get that in a jumbled amd setup today.
8 cores, yeah you can get that in a jumbled amd setup today.
arkitect
Mar 3, 04:52 AM
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate.
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
Why?
I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex
Why?
Yes, I know you "explain", but I just never get it.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
Last year I (male) married my partner (male) — we've been together 11 years. (As an aside, that 11 year relationship has outlasted all — and I mean all my straight cousins's marriages and relationships).
Now, you may not like to hear this, but when we have sex we make love. I do not see him as just an object. I fell in love with him because he is a wonderful man. He makes me happy and content.
No different from other couples straight or gay.
So why should we suddenly live together in a platonic relationship — because you have issues with sex?
We're pretty middle class (Shock *gasp* horror). We look out for our neighbours, our friends come around for dinner and sometimes they bring their little kids along. Listen to music and nod off in front of the TV. We have sex, sorry to freak you out, but we do.
In all respects we are normal adults contributing to society, paying taxes, recycling our (maybe too many) wine bottles etc.
Look I am sorry life apparently dealt you a few nasty cards, but perhaps you should consider a religious retreat — life in a monastery can be I hear very fulfilling for men and women like you.
But please leave the rest of us to deal with 21st century issues.
And as for your two gay friends… well… I don't know if I wouldn't file them under I for imaginary. That is just my gut instinct. (Unless the couple you refer to are Catholic priests, in which case… I guess.)
maclaptop
Apr 14, 04:48 PM
still, you cannot say the iphone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
+1
+1
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:39 AM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:
Yebubbleman
Apr 6, 01:57 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Woo! Something not MacBook Pro or iOS related!
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
Both machines would be fine, though the 13"/15" MacBook Pro is more fully-featured of a machine than the Air, and frankly at that cost, why pay for an incomplete system?
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
If you have to do either, I'd do the former. But I'm in the "screw the Intel HD 3000 bandwaggon" and I also don't think that an Air should replace a Pro unless you have a problem lifting five pounds.
I would love to see a 15" laptop with no optical drive, with the specs and price somewhere between the MBA and MBP.
KEEP DREAMING!
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
First off, it's a fair assumption that they won't be more powerful than the current 13" MacBook Pros. Second, it's a fair assumption that the Intel HD 3000 will be in tow, and if the SV HD 3000 is inferior to the SV NVIDIA GeForce 320M, then it's a fair assumption that the ULV versions will probably have a similar result when benchmarked. Then again, who in their right mind is relying on a MacBook Air to play games over say, a MacBook Pro or a P-freakin-C?!
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Most Flash and Java based sites have App-equivalents. Ideal, no. A true web experience, no. But there's an app for that.
At least I now have a short finite timeline to work with to buy my 13"/2.13GHz C2D/256GB MBA before they "upgrade" it to a vastly inferior Intel GPU.
It's a MacBook Air, for crying out loud! What were you going to use the GeForce 320M for anyway that you won't be able to do with the Intel HD 3000? (Note: Final Cut Studio type things and gaming, which are the only two things that you'd feel the difference between the two IGPs on anyway, are laughable answers.)
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
The MacBook Air is crippled for content creation purposes. It is no MacBook Pro. The iPad is not crippled for content consumption. Sure, the iPad isn't yet the most stellar option for content creation purposes, but it's not crippled for what it's intended to do. With a 13" or 15" MacBook Pro, there's little practical use for a MacBook Air unless you have a problem lifting the two extra pounds, and really, if you do, either exercise or invest in physical therapy.
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's more that a feature was taken away and the natural psychological response when that happens is "Why did you do that? Give it back!"
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
It's a step down from the GeForce 320M, but a step up from the GeForce 9400M and the Intel GMA IGPs used before it.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
+1
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
This.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Woo! Something not MacBook Pro or iOS related!
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
Both machines would be fine, though the 13"/15" MacBook Pro is more fully-featured of a machine than the Air, and frankly at that cost, why pay for an incomplete system?
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
If you have to do either, I'd do the former. But I'm in the "screw the Intel HD 3000 bandwaggon" and I also don't think that an Air should replace a Pro unless you have a problem lifting five pounds.
I would love to see a 15" laptop with no optical drive, with the specs and price somewhere between the MBA and MBP.
KEEP DREAMING!
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
First off, it's a fair assumption that they won't be more powerful than the current 13" MacBook Pros. Second, it's a fair assumption that the Intel HD 3000 will be in tow, and if the SV HD 3000 is inferior to the SV NVIDIA GeForce 320M, then it's a fair assumption that the ULV versions will probably have a similar result when benchmarked. Then again, who in their right mind is relying on a MacBook Air to play games over say, a MacBook Pro or a P-freakin-C?!
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Most Flash and Java based sites have App-equivalents. Ideal, no. A true web experience, no. But there's an app for that.
At least I now have a short finite timeline to work with to buy my 13"/2.13GHz C2D/256GB MBA before they "upgrade" it to a vastly inferior Intel GPU.
It's a MacBook Air, for crying out loud! What were you going to use the GeForce 320M for anyway that you won't be able to do with the Intel HD 3000? (Note: Final Cut Studio type things and gaming, which are the only two things that you'd feel the difference between the two IGPs on anyway, are laughable answers.)
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
The MacBook Air is crippled for content creation purposes. It is no MacBook Pro. The iPad is not crippled for content consumption. Sure, the iPad isn't yet the most stellar option for content creation purposes, but it's not crippled for what it's intended to do. With a 13" or 15" MacBook Pro, there's little practical use for a MacBook Air unless you have a problem lifting the two extra pounds, and really, if you do, either exercise or invest in physical therapy.
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's more that a feature was taken away and the natural psychological response when that happens is "Why did you do that? Give it back!"
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
It's a step down from the GeForce 320M, but a step up from the GeForce 9400M and the Intel GMA IGPs used before it.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
+1
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
This.
jav6454
Feb 28, 04:48 PM
Well, I have nothing to say, but that the University has grounds for dismissal if difference of opinion arises.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
hob
Apr 5, 07:20 PM
- Major revamp of asset cataloguing system with integrated final cut server, something similiar to what Aperture does with photos. This will be it's biggest feature
- Core image fx with integrated Shake-style fx compositing
and the usual obvious things (64 bit, new formats, updated quicktime, etc..)
I would /kill/ for better asset management. The "Aperture" for video is what I've been needing for a while now...
- Core image fx with integrated Shake-style fx compositing
and the usual obvious things (64 bit, new formats, updated quicktime, etc..)
I would /kill/ for better asset management. The "Aperture" for video is what I've been needing for a while now...
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
mozmac
Nov 29, 09:21 AM
Dirty mother farters. How dare you try to claim a share of the music players. You see, they do more than just music. Would if someone bought one without putting any music on it!
Piggie
Apr 8, 07:13 AM
I don't know if anyone has explained Best Buy's actions at all and why they would hold back on selling stock the have yet.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
100% agree with you and people need to realise how stupid people high up the ladder are, and out of touch with reality with these things, which then cause the behaviour you have explained to happen.
Actually by selling more than your expected quota this month may even end up with your expected quota being increased for future months.
Effectively shooting yourself in the foot.
To put it in it's simplest form, say someone paid you $5 to walk to the shops and buy them a pizza, and give you 15 mins for the journey. You go the task, get your $5 dollars and everyone is happy.
Now, once you decide to jog a little and arrive back in 10 mins, wow that's great, so much quicker. but from now on, will will only allow you 11 mins to get the pizza for the $5 payment.
Then you are silly enough to run a little one day and come back in just 5 mins, wow, this is an improvement. Head office have now decided to allow you 6 mins to perform the task for your $5.
How stupid are you, when you could have been walking all this time and still of had your original 15mins for your $5 payment.
Perhaps you could of run in just 5 mins, but you really should of stopped and chatted to someone for 10 mins to use your allowed time up.
I run a branch for a construction supply company and am judged based on daily and monthly goals.
It doesn't matter if I do three times my monthly goal this month if I don't hit goal at all next month. It doesn't make sense but it is the way business works. I have held orders that come in at the end of the month for the beginning of the next if I have already hit this month's goal so that I get a head start on next month's.
For the manager at Best Buy he probably felt that it served him better to the corporate big wigs if he hit his goal every day rather than pass his goal one day and not reach it the next.
Is it best for the COMPANY or for the CONSUMER? No... But in this world of sales and numbers managers tend to do what will make their bosses happy, which is to make sure that when they check the numbers on the spreadsheet every day they hit their numbers and don't get yelled at.
100% agree with you and people need to realise how stupid people high up the ladder are, and out of touch with reality with these things, which then cause the behaviour you have explained to happen.
Actually by selling more than your expected quota this month may even end up with your expected quota being increased for future months.
Effectively shooting yourself in the foot.
To put it in it's simplest form, say someone paid you $5 to walk to the shops and buy them a pizza, and give you 15 mins for the journey. You go the task, get your $5 dollars and everyone is happy.
Now, once you decide to jog a little and arrive back in 10 mins, wow that's great, so much quicker. but from now on, will will only allow you 11 mins to get the pizza for the $5 payment.
Then you are silly enough to run a little one day and come back in just 5 mins, wow, this is an improvement. Head office have now decided to allow you 6 mins to perform the task for your $5.
How stupid are you, when you could have been walking all this time and still of had your original 15mins for your $5 payment.
Perhaps you could of run in just 5 mins, but you really should of stopped and chatted to someone for 10 mins to use your allowed time up.
rosalindavenue
Mar 31, 03:18 PM
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
michaelz
Mar 22, 09:32 PM
This seems to me to be good news in 2 ways:
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
icloud
Aug 7, 09:34 PM
This preview of Leopard seemed really like a glaze over of some "fun" little advancements, it did not look polished at all...to all those dissapointed in what leopard has to offer, not to be punny, but steve has barely let the cat out of the bag
tonne more to come
tonne more to come
danielpicasso
Mar 26, 01:33 PM
Some of the comments on this board are inane.
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
1) Launchpad is the selling point...Really? You think Versions, Resume, Mission Control, OS wide Full Screen App support are not selling points?
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
3) When has Apple released an OS, and not shown new features on the final release keynote?
thanks for keeping the inmates sane...... why would Apple let their OS be anything but perfect
No comments:
Post a Comment