toddybody
Mar 22, 03:12 PM
Now I can rid myself of my 27" i7 2009 iMac.
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:
- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)
Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
steve_hill4
Aug 23, 05:40 PM
Steve Jobs knew this was a BS patent and it shows in his comments. Absolutely Stupid. Hell, the LISA had a Hierarchal File System. I'm still angry that this patent was even granted in the first place.
I agree as it is the only common sense system, but the argument is negated by the patent. That was for a portable music device with Hierarchal menu display/navigation system, (HFS is a file system Apple has used and not used in Creative's players).
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
I agree as it is the only common sense system, but the argument is negated by the patent. That was for a portable music device with Hierarchal menu display/navigation system, (HFS is a file system Apple has used and not used in Creative's players).
The courts could have said prior art, case dismissed or patent stands, Apple owes Creative $10 for every iPod sold since day 1. Apple didn't want to take any risks and settled. Good all round as far as I can see, even if I do agree it is a stupid patent award.
TrollToddington
Apr 22, 01:42 PM
I do hope that processor speed bump will not be the only change in the new MBAs. However, looking at Samsung 9 's pricepoint and what it offers makes me feel discouraged that Apple will put larger SSDs in the new MBAs.
Perhaps the new selling points will be:
- much faster processors - closing the gap to the 13" MBP
- increased battery life - 5:30-6 hours on 11", > 7 hours on 13"
I think it's unlikely that we see larger SSDs as standard on MBA until IB
Perhaps the new selling points will be:
- much faster processors - closing the gap to the 13" MBP
- increased battery life - 5:30-6 hours on 11", > 7 hours on 13"
I think it's unlikely that we see larger SSDs as standard on MBA until IB
TrollToddington
May 1, 12:00 AM
I wonder if the base SNB iMac will be faster than the base SNB MBP.
jsoto
Apr 28, 03:24 PM
Congrats!:D
Lesser Evets
May 3, 12:30 PM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:
We were discussing this a few threads down the front page.
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.
We were discussing this a few threads down the front page.
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.
JGowan
Sep 5, 05:14 PM
I've seen some posts about transferring "that much data" in disbelief. I calculate that a two hour movie will no more about 450MB. I hope it is, of course. This is based on a 1-hr episode of Lost is about 200MB. I fudge in 50MB for the fact that each Lost episode never is EXACTLY 1 hour.
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
aristotle
Nov 13, 05:03 PM
Serious, dude. You seem to be like those people who have their fingers in their ears singing "la, la, la, la, la I can't hear you".
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X. Rogue Amoeba was taking those images and distributing them via a WiFi network to another device where they have not licensed the display of those specific icons. This is really no different than if you licensed icons for use in your desktop application and then decided to use it in a few websites or a client server app without clearing it with the licenser first.
Rogue Amoeba could avoided all of those trouble by supplying their own icons. It also appears from the screenshot that they were taking two icons from OS X and superimposing them on each other.
There is one possibility that perhaps not been considered. What if Apple does not own the exclusive copyright to those images and has instead licensed them for a specific use within OS X on a mac and any other use would be a violation of that license?
ThomJensen
May 3, 11:26 AM
"Macworld has confirmation from Apple that the new iMacs will support Target Display Mode but only when the device they are connected to is also a Thunderbolt equipped Mac."
Is that true?
If this is true, then the new 27" iMacs will not serve as a mirror device for the iPad 2 (which shoots out video at 1080 p).
Is that true?
If this is true, then the new 27" iMacs will not serve as a mirror device for the iPad 2 (which shoots out video at 1080 p).
cwt1nospam
Jan 2, 02:04 PM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
dondark
Sep 14, 01:48 AM
IF iPhone comes out right after the new iPod, the sale's of the lower-end iPod may be influenced by the iPhone.
bloodycape
Jul 14, 03:49 PM
Cnet net already has a 2 reviews and a one video for this chip on two different pcs. One is Dell the other is Falcon Northwest.
The dell review and video here.
The dell review and video here.
AidenShaw
Mar 29, 03:15 PM
Love this little gem from that press release:
Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the facts - there are non-Android Linux-based mobile systems out there.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the facts - there are non-Android Linux-based mobile systems out there.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 08:28 PM
As has been mentioned the typical patent litigation is in the $5-$10 M range paid to the attorneys. With the main lawsuit and 5 countersuits they could have made a big dent in that $100M. Even when you have a large legal staff, litigation is usually handled by outside firms that specialize in those kinds of trials. With 32 million iPods sold in 2005 even a $3 licensing fee (~1% on average is not an atypical licensing fee) you'd easily surpass $100M if you were planning to sell iPods for more than 1 more year. A lump sum is preferable.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
There are also less obvious or tangible costs. Uncertainty is never good buyers may shy away from a purchase if they feel there is a potential that the product will soon be abandoned/unavailable. There's also the fact that the discovery process in such lawsuits is often used as a tool to try and pry information out from the other side, such as future product plans, etc. that might well be worth big $ keeping undr wraps. And last but not least is the distraction that such a suit tends to place on the key employees who may be involved in designing a workaround or simply being deposed and directly involved with the trial.
B
True, but let's put it this way: Apple didn't settle for $100 million because winning would have cost them as much as 10% of that sum. Remember, Apple was going up against a much smaller company with far less in the way of resources. If Apple could have ground Creative down over years of protracted litigation with some assurance of getting a better deal, then I have little doubt that they probably would have done so. I suspect Apple saw a RIM-like situation, where they were unlikely to prevail in court and in the meantime the litigation environment would create opportunities for competitors.
TallManNY
Mar 22, 01:23 PM
Good news. My Mom needs a new iMac due to screen issues on her ancient machine, so she will be getting my hand-me-down 24-inch Core 2 and I will be buying an upgrade. I would like to see the 24-inch come back, but will probably consider and go with the 27-inch.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
Swift
Apr 20, 01:10 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/researchers-disclose-iphone-and-ipad-location-tracking-privacy-issues/)
A pair of security researchers today announced (http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html) that they are sounding the privacy warning bell about the capability of iOS 4 to track the location of an iPhone or iPad on an ongoing basis, storing the data to a hidden file known as "consolidated.db" in the form of latitude and longitude and a timestamp for each point.While the consolidated.db file has been known for some time and has played a key role in forensic investigations of iOS devices by law enforcement agencies, the researchers note the data is available on the devices themselves and in backups in unencrypted and unprotected form, leading to significant privacy concerns. Once gathered, the data is saved in backups, restored to devices if necessary, and even migrated across devices, offering a lengthy history of a user's movement.
Article Link: Researchers Disclose iPhone and iPad Location-Tracking Privacy Issues (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/researchers-disclose-iphone-and-ipad-location-tracking-privacy-issues/)
Oh, my God! Somebody will know that I took the train! (If, of course, they are security researchers or police officers or vengeful wives who hire a tech detective). So what? Apple does what a responsible corporation must: it won't give out your location without your permission, each and every time.
As for the rest, so what. If you're doing a crime, and the police get a warrant to your computer, they will be able to trace where the phone has been. If it doesn't mesh with what you told them, you will have some explaining to do. If you're the victim of a crime, it will give lots of evidence to the holder of a warrant for the contents of your computer.
I mean, seriously. GPS chips in small devices mean I have GPS applications that show me the way. I can, with a group of similarly consenting friends or family, know where each other is at any time.
Other people make much of the fact that cellphone data itself is not covered by warrants, according to recent court decisions. So a policeman can simply call up AT&T or Verizon, present his credentials, and get a complete accounting of where your phone has been, and when it made calls. No voice data, so I really don't think it's covered by the 4th Amendment. After all, if you walk about in a public place, people have the right to see you. And take your picture, if you're under surveillance.
To defend our rights, first have a realistic notion of what those rights consist in.
A pair of security researchers today announced (http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html) that they are sounding the privacy warning bell about the capability of iOS 4 to track the location of an iPhone or iPad on an ongoing basis, storing the data to a hidden file known as "consolidated.db" in the form of latitude and longitude and a timestamp for each point.While the consolidated.db file has been known for some time and has played a key role in forensic investigations of iOS devices by law enforcement agencies, the researchers note the data is available on the devices themselves and in backups in unencrypted and unprotected form, leading to significant privacy concerns. Once gathered, the data is saved in backups, restored to devices if necessary, and even migrated across devices, offering a lengthy history of a user's movement.
Article Link: Researchers Disclose iPhone and iPad Location-Tracking Privacy Issues (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/researchers-disclose-iphone-and-ipad-location-tracking-privacy-issues/)
Oh, my God! Somebody will know that I took the train! (If, of course, they are security researchers or police officers or vengeful wives who hire a tech detective). So what? Apple does what a responsible corporation must: it won't give out your location without your permission, each and every time.
As for the rest, so what. If you're doing a crime, and the police get a warrant to your computer, they will be able to trace where the phone has been. If it doesn't mesh with what you told them, you will have some explaining to do. If you're the victim of a crime, it will give lots of evidence to the holder of a warrant for the contents of your computer.
I mean, seriously. GPS chips in small devices mean I have GPS applications that show me the way. I can, with a group of similarly consenting friends or family, know where each other is at any time.
Other people make much of the fact that cellphone data itself is not covered by warrants, according to recent court decisions. So a policeman can simply call up AT&T or Verizon, present his credentials, and get a complete accounting of where your phone has been, and when it made calls. No voice data, so I really don't think it's covered by the 4th Amendment. After all, if you walk about in a public place, people have the right to see you. And take your picture, if you're under surveillance.
To defend our rights, first have a realistic notion of what those rights consist in.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 13, 09:56 PM
Here's the real iPhone!!
http://static.flickr.com/85/241579656_a9c34f6679_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/85/241579656_a9c34f6679_o.jpg
dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:11 PM
Interesting. Microsoft calls these files "Programs" and always has. Nothing called an application exists in Windows, it only has programs. Seems maybe MS is a little late to this game, and they're gonna piss all over it for everyone else.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 11, 03:28 PM
XBMC might finally be able to totally replace Apple's own software with the same basic functionality (other than rentals). The only thing it lacks really is AirTunes and video tag reading (the latter of which I gather is already supposed to appear in the next major release). An AppleTV Gen1 with a Crystal card running Linux would then be quite the system with full 1080p output and yet still be able to sync music to other speakers in the house with iTunes.
hrmpf
Sep 8, 08:32 AM
http://static.flickr.com/97/237568763_4d5f25185c_m.jpg
new ipod patent (http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/84/apple-patent-app-touch-sensitive-ipod-with-multiple-touch-sensitive-surfaces)
new ipod patent (http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/84/apple-patent-app-touch-sensitive-ipod-with-multiple-touch-sensitive-surfaces)
dime21
Apr 15, 03:42 PM
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Of course, what did you expect from an interface designed for keyboards, joysticks, and mice?
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Of course, what did you expect from an interface designed for keyboards, joysticks, and mice?
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
Seasought
Sep 26, 10:46 AM
I'll have to check and see what Cingular is offering deal-wise at the time, but being T-Mobile currently I won't be getting the phone until it expands after that 6 month period.
Assuming I can tolerate the phone in the first place. I've yet to see a cell phone that's impressed me. If anyone can however, it's Apple.
Assuming I can tolerate the phone in the first place. I've yet to see a cell phone that's impressed me. If anyone can however, it's Apple.
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.