Rocketman
Nov 15, 01:34 PM
8 Core Mac Pro won't be cheap..
It turns out the 2.66 Ghz 8 core chips are about the same price as 3.0 Ghz 4 core chips. So the price differential will be product positioning, not raw cost.
Rocketman
It turns out the 2.66 Ghz 8 core chips are about the same price as 3.0 Ghz 4 core chips. So the price differential will be product positioning, not raw cost.
Rocketman
toddybody
Mar 24, 09:52 PM
So has anyone stuck a 6970 in a mac pro yet?
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Well then, Apple is gonna confuse alot of people with the 5770 crossfire MP upgrade. Look it up folks, crossfire is supported
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTg5MTY5NDQ
rumz
Apr 12, 10:34 PM
That price tag doesn't seem so ridiculous.
When was the last time final cut pro was available as a stand-alone app? Seems like last time I considered getting it, it was only available as part of the $1k suite. So $299 easily seems like a more reasonable entry fee than buying Final Cut Studio.
When was the last time final cut pro was available as a stand-alone app? Seems like last time I considered getting it, it was only available as part of the $1k suite. So $299 easily seems like a more reasonable entry fee than buying Final Cut Studio.
ncbill
Jan 11, 08:17 PM
13" screen means you can only shave about a pound off the Macbook's current weight - so a 4lb, not 3lb. notebook.
If the above is true, then I guess this is not a macbook lite, but a macbook pro lite, so I'd expect starting price of $1999.
If the above is true, then I guess this is not a macbook lite, but a macbook pro lite, so I'd expect starting price of $1999.
twoodcc
Dec 12, 12:15 AM
congrats to mc68k for 8 million points!
Krizoitz
Mar 21, 08:13 AM
and since Apple is missing the market so bad its sales have sunk to the lowest % in its history. there will come a point that it wont matter how much money is in their bank because no one will be buying the stuff. Look at iJon even he uses a PC for gaming. most people dont have a pc and a Mac so what do they buy? a PC.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
SciFrog
Nov 8, 07:24 AM
Got #7 spot on the team!
Now it gets much harder, a month and a half at least.
The team is doing great with 230k PPD
we should maintain our rank at least, but I have a feeling many windows teams have not discovered the bigadv units yet. Rumor is if GPU3 is stable, it might make it to Linux.
Now it gets much harder, a month and a half at least.
The team is doing great with 230k PPD
we should maintain our rank at least, but I have a feeling many windows teams have not discovered the bigadv units yet. Rumor is if GPU3 is stable, it might make it to Linux.
hogo
Sep 15, 06:18 AM
same here
me three
me three
7thMac
Mar 22, 04:42 PM
I love the Classic. Everything doesn't need to run iOS. But there is room for improvement and when something better comes along I'll buy it. For now there doesn't seem to be any competition.
da_sebsta
Apr 2, 06:09 AM
While i dont agree with imac_Japan that apple needs saving there needs to be changes in its attitude with markets other then US especially in Australia by apple.I live in Aus It is no wonder that apple is struggling in here, other then the ipod there sales arent ne thing to write home about and the main reason this is because of the inflated price of there products over the price in US. When people see other computers in shops for the quater of the price with marketing to make it look faster and better no wander peple arnt buying macs here.
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:45 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Umm, no. They would have changed the name in January when they did the MBP and went intel. The i will stay because it is the internet or integrated Mac
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Umm, no. They would have changed the name in January when they did the MBP and went intel. The i will stay because it is the internet or integrated Mac
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Cloudgazer
Nov 28, 05:06 AM
I'm surprised no one has ventured a guess as to whether these 17" monitors are going to be glossy or matte.
;)
;)
shrimpdesign
Aug 7, 12:03 AM
I predict the Mac Pro, Xserve and a kick-ass preview of Leopard.
And I dobt any consumer items will be introduced (iPod, iTablet, iPhone) .. but they can surprise me if they want!
And I dobt any consumer items will be introduced (iPod, iTablet, iPhone) .. but they can surprise me if they want!
ArtOfWarfare
Apr 12, 09:42 PM
Better yet, 9 to 5 mac has a video stream.
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
This is working equally not well.
http://www.9to5mac.com/61109/nab-2011/
This is working equally not well.
petsounds
Apr 3, 06:10 AM
I wasn't too stirred. It's not terrible, of course. Nothing Chiat\Day does for Apple is ever terrible. But it lacks the emotion of the iPhone 4 Facetime ad. It's a finger playing with some apps. We've seen this before. The only difference is serious piano music and a voiceover script that is pretty weak. It doesn't really hit you at the end. And they had to throw in "magical" of course. Apple's use of "magical" is as played out as Charlie Sheen's use of "winning".
I think it's an attempt to make people feel some emotional bond with the iPad, but there isn't one. The iPhone, or any phone that people really love, becomes an emotional conduit because it allows you to communicate with the people you care about. The iPad 2 commercial showed useful apps. And that's fine. But it doesn't match up with the gravitas the announcer (and copywriter) were attempting to impart upon it. Maybe it is possible to make this connection, to bubble up these emotions, but not by just showing a finger. You have to show people using it in a compelling manner.
I think it's an attempt to make people feel some emotional bond with the iPad, but there isn't one. The iPhone, or any phone that people really love, becomes an emotional conduit because it allows you to communicate with the people you care about. The iPad 2 commercial showed useful apps. And that's fine. But it doesn't match up with the gravitas the announcer (and copywriter) were attempting to impart upon it. Maybe it is possible to make this connection, to bubble up these emotions, but not by just showing a finger. You have to show people using it in a compelling manner.
Twizz91
Mar 22, 05:12 PM
exactly. ios4 base, but made look the same UI.
Come to think about it, longer lasting battery stamina, better screen, internal additions. All without really changing the physical appearance of the classic.
It can therefore still be 'classic' with up-to-date tweaks.
No iOS for the Classic.
The Classic will remain classic, that means it won't have too many functions.
Therefore it won't need an operating system(OS)
Just my 2 cents
Come to think about it, longer lasting battery stamina, better screen, internal additions. All without really changing the physical appearance of the classic.
It can therefore still be 'classic' with up-to-date tweaks.
No iOS for the Classic.
The Classic will remain classic, that means it won't have too many functions.
Therefore it won't need an operating system(OS)
Just my 2 cents
Don Kosak
May 2, 06:02 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
That's what the big deal about this auto-save / resume / versioning stuff is about.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
That's what the big deal about this auto-save / resume / versioning stuff is about.
milo
Aug 29, 09:45 AM
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
It's not so bad on the low end, but that's a pretty piddly update for the pricier model, especially when you consider what the competition is using. The only way it would be forgivable would be if they had a pretty sizable price drop on the high end.
It's not so bad on the low end, but that's a pretty piddly update for the pricier model, especially when you consider what the competition is using. The only way it would be forgivable would be if they had a pretty sizable price drop on the high end.
baddj
Mar 31, 06:37 AM
Urgh, new iCal really is horrible.
Can you post a screenshot?
Can you post a screenshot?
rdowns
Mar 19, 04:50 PM
mispost...ignore.
As if we need to be told that.
As if we need to be told that.
Yakuza
Nov 24, 09:21 AM
Even more awesome is that's the brainchild of Dan Akroyd.
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
Evangelion
Jul 14, 07:26 AM
It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)
But there are lots of people who use the wireless for more than just web-surfing. Hell, WLAN is used at my workplace quite extensively in place of wired ethernet. That was the whole point of my comment. I (among others) use network-connectivity (wired or otherwise) for other things besides web-surfing
As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.
But there are lots of people who use the wireless for more than just web-surfing. Hell, WLAN is used at my workplace quite extensively in place of wired ethernet. That was the whole point of my comment. I (among others) use network-connectivity (wired or otherwise) for other things besides web-surfing
As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.
63dot
Jan 6, 10:13 AM
If properly maintained, mileage holds no bounds! BMW's will go to 250k easy.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
0 comments:
Post a Comment