ergle2
Aug 27, 07:55 PM
I was under the impression when the Core 2 Duos were released, but I hope very soon because they are a measurable improvement over the GMA950 which isn't as bad as everyone make it out to be.
The benchmarks I've seen suggest that it's in fact slower.
Take a look at http://www.pconline.com.cn/market/sh/shoppingguide/changshang/0608/844892.html
The Inquirer - I know, that bastion of rumor-mongering and unfounded allegation - has been reporting that OEMs are saying "it sucks".
Maybe this will be sorted out in later steppings, but these were awfully recent revsions...
The benchmarks I've seen suggest that it's in fact slower.
Take a look at http://www.pconline.com.cn/market/sh/shoppingguide/changshang/0608/844892.html
The Inquirer - I know, that bastion of rumor-mongering and unfounded allegation - has been reporting that OEMs are saying "it sucks".
Maybe this will be sorted out in later steppings, but these were awfully recent revsions...
know-it-all5
Jan 3, 07:36 PM
This would point to iPods being a footnote in the keynote, but the original iPod's end of cycle status (it hasn't been updated for quite some time, by iPod standards) and the fact that Zune was released earlier, I have a feeling Steve Jobs will want to one up Microsoft in the music player department after doing so with a demonstration of Leopard in the OS department.
do u consider the september update an update?
do u consider the september update an update?
budugu
Sep 6, 11:28 PM
Is the 160GB BTO HD perpendicular?
yup!
yup!
anim8or
Sep 6, 08:52 AM
Does anyone think that as we have seen the Mac Mini's update was just a speed bump, that the MacBook will only see a speed bump too.
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 07:03 PM
seems like they may be targeting Gaddafi now ...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
DaveN
Mar 4, 08:12 PM
From the first article "A diesel Cruze would be about 12 percent more fuel efficient than the ECO, but diesel is about 9 percent more expensive than gasoline, eliminating the majority of the benefit." Also from the article, the ECO costs $19,000. In England, GM charges an extra $2700 for the diesel version. So it looks like you have to drive a lot of miles before you break even.
Am I anti diesel? Hardly, I bought a diesel Dodge Ram back in 1999 and still have it. At the time the initial cost was several thousand more than a gas model. Diesel fuel at that time was significantly less expensive than gasoline and the fuel economy was a lot better. I still have that truck though for my daily commute, I drive my Chevy Lumina as it gets 20 mpg in town (much better than my truck). If fuel prices keep going up, a may commute by bicycle this summer... I may do that anyway for health reasons though not if it gets too hot.
Am I anti diesel? Hardly, I bought a diesel Dodge Ram back in 1999 and still have it. At the time the initial cost was several thousand more than a gas model. Diesel fuel at that time was significantly less expensive than gasoline and the fuel economy was a lot better. I still have that truck though for my daily commute, I drive my Chevy Lumina as it gets 20 mpg in town (much better than my truck). If fuel prices keep going up, a may commute by bicycle this summer... I may do that anyway for health reasons though not if it gets too hot.
feedface
Apr 21, 12:15 PM
has anyone actually used the app in question? The data is so wildly inaccurate as to make it pointless. Even recompiling it with a 1000 times more accuracy has me placed in locations I haven't been to since I go an iPhone. So the question is not one of data, per se, but data accuracy: law enforcement have known about this for ages. If my iPhone says I was near a scene of crime, but I disagree, I bet I know which side the police would go with. That is the trouble with this data.
peharri
Jan 1, 06:30 PM
....Steve gets another call 5 mintues later...
...pulls out iPhone
...geeks bumrush the stage and carry Steve off on their shoulders
I find it hard to believe they'll get that excited about a Cisco Wifi phone, especially if a Motorola iTunes phone doesn't do the job...
I guess we'll see more of Leopard.
We might see more of iTV. I think, contrary to what some insist upon here, that iTV will be a standalone box, requiring no additional Mac to work. There's little point in it having storage if it isn't going to be, and a consumer device requiring a computer is something I think Apple wants to get away from. At the same time, what I've seen so far is Apple seperating the media business from the computer business, and wouldn't be surprised if they actually avoid showing iTV (and iPod enhancements) at MWSF.
iPod Phone (or whatever it's called) is a no-no. I'm not ruling out it being a future Apple product, there's too much evidence it exists, I just doubt it'll be there for MWSF, both because it's not a Mac (see above comment) and because I think they'd do an actual keynote. And, as always, for Apple's sake, I hope the rumour is complete rubbish.
iLife - why, yes. Even better would be improvements to iWork, notable some of the missing components added. Apple lacks an office suite. iWork is not an office suite, and Mac enthusiasts do everyone no favours by pretending it is. If Apple are unwilling to complete iWork, they could throw their weight behind NeoOffice.
I really love the game console rumour. It sounds completely made up to me, but now would be a great time to introduce something, even if it's just a low cost Mac mini in practice. The Playstation 3 is a disaster. The Xbox 360 isn't selling in anything like the numbers Microsoft hoped. The only console that's actually moving at the moment is the Wii, and the low power of the thing means it might only have a year of marketability in it. If ever there was a time for Apple to jump into the market, it would be now. But that said, I seriously doubt they will.
...pulls out iPhone
...geeks bumrush the stage and carry Steve off on their shoulders
I find it hard to believe they'll get that excited about a Cisco Wifi phone, especially if a Motorola iTunes phone doesn't do the job...
I guess we'll see more of Leopard.
We might see more of iTV. I think, contrary to what some insist upon here, that iTV will be a standalone box, requiring no additional Mac to work. There's little point in it having storage if it isn't going to be, and a consumer device requiring a computer is something I think Apple wants to get away from. At the same time, what I've seen so far is Apple seperating the media business from the computer business, and wouldn't be surprised if they actually avoid showing iTV (and iPod enhancements) at MWSF.
iPod Phone (or whatever it's called) is a no-no. I'm not ruling out it being a future Apple product, there's too much evidence it exists, I just doubt it'll be there for MWSF, both because it's not a Mac (see above comment) and because I think they'd do an actual keynote. And, as always, for Apple's sake, I hope the rumour is complete rubbish.
iLife - why, yes. Even better would be improvements to iWork, notable some of the missing components added. Apple lacks an office suite. iWork is not an office suite, and Mac enthusiasts do everyone no favours by pretending it is. If Apple are unwilling to complete iWork, they could throw their weight behind NeoOffice.
I really love the game console rumour. It sounds completely made up to me, but now would be a great time to introduce something, even if it's just a low cost Mac mini in practice. The Playstation 3 is a disaster. The Xbox 360 isn't selling in anything like the numbers Microsoft hoped. The only console that's actually moving at the moment is the Wii, and the low power of the thing means it might only have a year of marketability in it. If ever there was a time for Apple to jump into the market, it would be now. But that said, I seriously doubt they will.
guzhogi
Nov 15, 10:08 AM
I wonder how much of a performance boost (if any) there would be if someone made a whole operating from scratch. Totally new compiler, new programming libraries, new everything to take full advantage of all of today's technologies. This would take several years and hard work, I know, so don't flame me.
I was a programming major in college (though I sucked at it). I know that a lot of the libraries I used in it (like iostream and string) have been around since the '80's. Back then, consumer computers didn't have 4 core, 64-bit processors and high end video cards and broadband internet. While the libraries have been updated a little to work, they're not optimized for all the new technologies we have now.
I was a programming major in college (though I sucked at it). I know that a lot of the libraries I used in it (like iostream and string) have been around since the '80's. Back then, consumer computers didn't have 4 core, 64-bit processors and high end video cards and broadband internet. While the libraries have been updated a little to work, they're not optimized for all the new technologies we have now.
SuperCachetes
Mar 2, 03:01 PM
The VW diesels are very well-built cars. A friend bought an '09 Jetta TDI and he is satisfied with it. I checked out the BMW 335d at the Detroit Auto show a year ago or so, and while I like the car BMW only offers it as a sedan and the base price is a laughably expensive $44k. If you won't buy a VW and want a newish diesel, your only other vaguely affordable option is a used W210/W211 (1996-2009) Mercedes Benz E-Class diesel. Nice cars, but you'll have to find one and it will be used (and not particularly cheap).
Are the Diesel versions built in Germany?
The Jetta I have is a 2000 1.8T, assembled in Puebla, and I would not call it "well-built" at all. I won't go so far as to call it a lemon, but there's evidence of poor engineering and poor assembly throughout the car. I suppose it was a first-year model...
In hindsight, I do wish I'd have gotten the Diesel variant of the era, but all in all, I still think I could've done better with a Honda. YMMV.
Are the Diesel versions built in Germany?
The Jetta I have is a 2000 1.8T, assembled in Puebla, and I would not call it "well-built" at all. I won't go so far as to call it a lemon, but there's evidence of poor engineering and poor assembly throughout the car. I suppose it was a first-year model...
In hindsight, I do wish I'd have gotten the Diesel variant of the era, but all in all, I still think I could've done better with a Honda. YMMV.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
bankshot
Jul 18, 02:06 AM
A major consumer announcement at a developers conference? Not gonna happen. End of story!
ThinkSecret hasn't been right about anything since they got in trouble over leaks.
ThinkSecret hasn't been right about anything since they got in trouble over leaks.
Unspeaked
Nov 28, 11:33 AM
I know that it's not quite fair to compare the two right out of the launch (a baby product versus a mature one), but MS didn't help themselves by setting up this product to compete directly with the iPod. If they had tried to target a different market (maybe primarily video as opposed to music), they might have more success, and let the hype build from there. But the way they seem to be playing it now, they're going to just throw a lot of money into something that will be in Apple's shadow. It'll offer a compelling alternative to some, but will not necessarily convince too many to become switchers. :p
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
Fukui
Mar 21, 07:11 PM
What people don't understand is that Apple is dying....
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead.
Not exactly. Everyone's buying DELLs.
And, For What its worth, apples market share may be lower over time, but thier installed/customer base IS increasing. Just not at the same growth level as the Big Players. The only thing that prevents apples larger growth is largely microsoft.
When customers cant access the website they want, take classes to learn MS office only on PC's because the mac version is different, cant use all the same peripherals as windows users (not as bad as it used to be for sure) etc, apple will grow slower than the bigger PC companies.
How come Acer isnt dying with its meager 3 percent market share?
Lower prices don't seem to help them that much...
Its much more than price that determines market share, things like advertising...which is what apple is actually doing for the iPod.
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead.
Not exactly. Everyone's buying DELLs.
And, For What its worth, apples market share may be lower over time, but thier installed/customer base IS increasing. Just not at the same growth level as the Big Players. The only thing that prevents apples larger growth is largely microsoft.
When customers cant access the website they want, take classes to learn MS office only on PC's because the mac version is different, cant use all the same peripherals as windows users (not as bad as it used to be for sure) etc, apple will grow slower than the bigger PC companies.
How come Acer isnt dying with its meager 3 percent market share?
Lower prices don't seem to help them that much...
Its much more than price that determines market share, things like advertising...which is what apple is actually doing for the iPod.
BC2009
Mar 25, 04:23 PM
I knew it didnt support mirroring but thats my bad. I have an iPad 2, but i was told at Apple the hdmi cable won't work with iPad 1. Guess they should read up a little bit.
Their retail and tech support folks are not too familiar with it yet. You have to do some reading to catch that. I tried the Digital AV Adapter with my iPad-1 and it worked for playing movies -- only problem is my HDMI TV does not support HDCP which means it registers as an unauthorized device to playback fairplay movies -- this TV was made when TV's were first starting to get 1 HDMI input -- still I think they should fix that since my Apple TV does not have a problem with that television.
Either way, since I have the Apple TV and AirPlay, I can't see using the adapter for that function.
Their retail and tech support folks are not too familiar with it yet. You have to do some reading to catch that. I tried the Digital AV Adapter with my iPad-1 and it worked for playing movies -- only problem is my HDMI TV does not support HDCP which means it registers as an unauthorized device to playback fairplay movies -- this TV was made when TV's were first starting to get 1 HDMI input -- still I think they should fix that since my Apple TV does not have a problem with that television.
Either way, since I have the Apple TV and AirPlay, I can't see using the adapter for that function.
twoodcc
Dec 12, 12:15 AM
congrats to mc68k for 8 million points!
puuukeey
Sep 1, 02:43 PM
if it gets bigger, does it get thinner?
Lurchdubious
Nov 26, 06:14 PM
Lurchdubious, are you building a glasses case?:p
/ok, I'll stop now
ROTFL!!! :D Indeed I AM!
/ok, I'll stop now
ROTFL!!! :D Indeed I AM!
tickmo
Sep 1, 03:00 PM
A 23" home theater screen? Umm.......
umm.. what? My wife and i already watch 99% of anything directly on our iMac G5 20". It looks great, no problem with the size. Of course our apartment is very small :)
as always more is better but less is still pretty good!
umm.. what? My wife and i already watch 99% of anything directly on our iMac G5 20". It looks great, no problem with the size. Of course our apartment is very small :)
as always more is better but less is still pretty good!
macfan70
Nov 27, 01:43 PM
This Asus LCD is great but even at 500 bucks very few people will buy it.
The rotating feature would be great for reading threads. ;)
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
The rotating feature would be great for reading threads. ;)
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
iJon
Mar 20, 08:21 PM
apple doesnt aim their market at people who shop for those computers, simple as that.
iJon
iJon
Small White Car
Apr 12, 08:55 PM
I remember the keynote... He was on vacation and wanted a super easy way to edit his home movie. So he whipped up this "new" program to do it. Steve liked it and it became iMovie. And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window. Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.
I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.
I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 01:44 PM
I am still really surprised that it seems as if nobody else has had the greyed-out toolbar in fullscreen Safari bug that I've got. Has anyone heard or read something that I haven't? I am much more looking forward to the next preview/beta build now, it suffices to say. ;)
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 08:45 PM
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
0 comments:
Post a Comment