Sydde
Apr 11, 08:09 PM
Is it emissions regulation or just plain laziness by the automakers?
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
HecubusPro
Sep 17, 04:27 PM
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Yeah, that candy bar picture has been floating around awhile. I'm just not a fan of it though. It doesn't look comfortable unless you use a hands-free device, and it seems as if all kinds of fingerprints, dust and dirt, and muck would show up way too easy on its' surface. All the pretty lights and images just make it too busy looking.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Yeah, that candy bar picture has been floating around awhile. I'm just not a fan of it though. It doesn't look comfortable unless you use a hands-free device, and it seems as if all kinds of fingerprints, dust and dirt, and muck would show up way too easy on its' surface. All the pretty lights and images just make it too busy looking.
Lixivial
Aug 23, 04:40 PM
In addition, the companies announced that Creative has joined Apple's "Made for iPod" program and will be announcing their own iPod accessory products later this year.
:eek:
...Sim Wong Hoo throwing in the towel? NEVER!
EDIT: Yeah, the $100 million is kinda shocking, too... :D
:eek:
...Sim Wong Hoo throwing in the towel? NEVER!
EDIT: Yeah, the $100 million is kinda shocking, too... :D
Stridder44
Sep 9, 04:59 AM
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
I agree. This is ridiculous. It's like buying an HD tv and not getting HD channels...
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
I agree. This is ridiculous. It's like buying an HD tv and not getting HD channels...
zero2dash
Aug 28, 12:43 PM
With the switch to Intel, Apple may have to provide timely upgrades to remain competitive with Windows-based PC manufacturers.
Apple isn't trying to remain competitive with anyone. :rolleyes:
Never have, never will.
They march to the beat of their own drum.
Apple isn't trying to remain competitive with anyone. :rolleyes:
Never have, never will.
They march to the beat of their own drum.
monke
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
Hmmm.. Ok, not really shocked by the design a whole lot, but finally there is some (for lack of a better word) proof of what it looks like. Sure hope it comes in aluminum and white :D
newagemac
Apr 11, 07:23 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Check out the Airframe and Airview apps in the App Store. They do what you want but unlike the Apple TV and Airport Express, you have to have the app open for the device to be recognized as an Airplay target device. Airview is free and Airframe costs a couple of bucks but it supports tv out which Airview does not. Neither support DRM content though.
But instead of using those apps, Apple already provides a solution in iOS 4.3 with iOS Home Sharing. It makes more sense in my opinion that way anyway. If you want to listen to music on computer with your mobile device it's usually because you have it in your hands which means a "pull" type solution like Home Sharing would be beneficial. A "push" type solution doesn't really make much sense unless you have your mobile device connected to a TV or some speakers. But then that's what the Apple TV and Airport Express are for.
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Check out the Airframe and Airview apps in the App Store. They do what you want but unlike the Apple TV and Airport Express, you have to have the app open for the device to be recognized as an Airplay target device. Airview is free and Airframe costs a couple of bucks but it supports tv out which Airview does not. Neither support DRM content though.
But instead of using those apps, Apple already provides a solution in iOS 4.3 with iOS Home Sharing. It makes more sense in my opinion that way anyway. If you want to listen to music on computer with your mobile device it's usually because you have it in your hands which means a "pull" type solution like Home Sharing would be beneficial. A "push" type solution doesn't really make much sense unless you have your mobile device connected to a TV or some speakers. But then that's what the Apple TV and Airport Express are for.
weg
Oct 28, 08:09 AM
It's about time Apple got rid of some of the rubbish materials in their machines, it's not that the campaigners are trying to brusie Apple but encourage them to be better than their competitors. I mean, Apple already has many advantages over Windows, so surely 'Green' can be one of them.
As long as Microsoft doesn't remove the power management from Vista there's no way how an operating system could be non-green...
As long as Microsoft doesn't remove the power management from Vista there's no way how an operating system could be non-green...
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 08:29 PM
And there are several ways to dial abroad using a US carrier.
Cingular (GSM) is $1.29/min in Europe. (About .68 pounds in the UK)
Verizon (CDMA) has dual CDMA/GSM phones that are $1.49 in Europe. (about .79 pounds.)
Sprint (CDMA) also has some dual CDMA/GSM phones that are also $1.49 a minut in Europe.
Although the best deal is with T-Mobile (GSM)> $.99 in Europe. (Or .52 pounds)
So we, too, have international choices.
Cingular (GSM) is $1.29/min in Europe. (About .68 pounds in the UK)
Verizon (CDMA) has dual CDMA/GSM phones that are $1.49 in Europe. (about .79 pounds.)
Sprint (CDMA) also has some dual CDMA/GSM phones that are also $1.49 a minut in Europe.
Although the best deal is with T-Mobile (GSM)> $.99 in Europe. (Or .52 pounds)
So we, too, have international choices.
AppleHater
Apr 20, 12:43 AM
Please come to Korea. Samsung have been doing this illegally for years, often suing the small person to popperdom. No big corporation is good, but when you attach massive corps under the umbrella of a conglomerate, you combine all of that evil into one massive black hole.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
You're making some impressive allegation. Quite a conspiracy theory that is. Speaking of your buying up Apple comment, Samsung being able to buy Canada sounds pretty amusing and cute as well.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
You're making some impressive allegation. Quite a conspiracy theory that is. Speaking of your buying up Apple comment, Samsung being able to buy Canada sounds pretty amusing and cute as well.
ehoui
Apr 30, 01:31 PM
Why do they want OS X users to feel as if we were on an iPad!!!???
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
IntelliUser
Jan 15, 05:33 PM
Do you run itunes or quicktime? Or possibly a web browser?
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
FatDaddy 64.5
Sep 15, 06:14 PM
Wow. I just ordered my MBP on Wen. Looks like I'll be sending that back for the upgrade.
grahamwright1
Nov 13, 12:49 PM
In simplest terms, Apple's objections to the use of "Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols" in the application led to multiple rejections of an update designed to fix a critical performance bug, leading to a delay of over three and a half months before the updated version was finally approved and made available to the public.
This is very disheartening since they were using information specifically supplied by Apple for the use of developers. It's time for a significant revamping of the approval process before we see any more problems like this!
This is very disheartening since they were using information specifically supplied by Apple for the use of developers. It's time for a significant revamping of the approval process before we see any more problems like this!
w00master
Nov 13, 02:07 PM
You should try it!
They didn't break the rules.
Looks like some of these apologists don't even read the developers side. In fact, I'd count on that fact.
w00master
They didn't break the rules.
Looks like some of these apologists don't even read the developers side. In fact, I'd count on that fact.
w00master
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 09:23 AM
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
vincebio
Sep 26, 07:26 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
did you read the article above?
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
did you read the article above?
"Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals"
:D
ThunderSkunk
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Cunning linguist jokes, commence!
caspersoong
May 4, 03:14 AM
I wonder why it takes so much space to house all the iMac hardware... And why the screen has to be so large to fit better processors, etc and the additional ThunderBolt Port.
GorgonPhone
Mar 22, 03:14 PM
with mac minis and imacs there is no reason to buy mac pros any more at all...lol
BornAgainMac
Oct 12, 12:33 PM
Why is U2 so big with iPods anyways? The only group to have their own iPod. :confused:
(I don't mean to be disrespectful to the U2 fanboys out there)
(I don't mean to be disrespectful to the U2 fanboys out there)
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 5, 11:01 AM
So with those numbers, a 720p stream with 5.1 audio should easily stream over even a 10 mbit network device. So I can easily see this working over 802.11g.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
Your numbers are good but you assume 10mbps is easy with 802.11g because they advertise '54mbps' on the box.
In practice, you see half of that max, right next to the access point, without protocol overhead.
By time you get half way across a typical house from Mac to TV, you're lucky to see 3-4mpbs. I've tried this using 5-600kbps codecs and current wireless just doesn't cut it outside the lab.
That kind of reduction ratio on 802.11n is going to be fine for h.264 streaming. Apple won't wait a whole 'nother year for the standards committees to get their act in gear. When the chipset manufacturers are certain the shipping silicon will handle the release spec, Apple will release a pre-n unit. The stuff that was on the shelves last year probably is going to wind up not being upgradeable to the standard, due to silicon changes, so they were wise to wait. The timing is right.
Mango Juice
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
I think this 'reliable confirmation' is about the Macbook's, not the Macbook Pro's. The Macbook redesign wasn't very future-proof and is similar to the older ones, and the MBP unibody is pretty much age-less and hasn't been out for very long. So...unibody/carbon fibre Macbook's seems more likely to me, rather than another MBP redesign.
bellatrixr
Sep 12, 02:34 PM
Gapless playback? What does this mean?
How will the home sync work? I don't want to screw up my iPod, my home library on my MacBook Pro & my iTunes library on my office G5.
I've downloaded iTunes 7, bought a game (same trouble w/my 5G; still no iPod software update yet to make the game work) & clicked to "Get Album Artwork," which seems to be running in the background. So far so good.
How will the home sync work? I don't want to screw up my iPod, my home library on my MacBook Pro & my iTunes library on my office G5.
I've downloaded iTunes 7, bought a game (same trouble w/my 5G; still no iPod software update yet to make the game work) & clicked to "Get Album Artwork," which seems to be running in the background. So far so good.