iScott428
Mar 29, 03:28 PM
What a stupid statement. Are you aware that Apple is an American company? So is Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, GE and other world-leading companies.
What's your alternative? Can you even name more than one world-class Chinese company?
*rolls eyes*
Yeah buddy I am. Are you aware that on every Apple Device it says "DESIGNED IN CALIFORNIA, ASSEMBLED IN CHINA."
There is a reason we do not build these products and it has been well covered through this thread. Can you name any good products made by those companies that you mentioned, that are actually built in the US. You know America SUCKS at making products when we need the media to convince us of this fact. Just watch TV, you do not see Apple advertising that they make there products in China, but you do see a bunch of other companies that slap a "Made in the USA" label gain Patriot approval. I avoid those products and save my money for products that have better quality; I dont innately hate american products, but experience has proved that they are inferior to build qualities of other nations. :apple::D
What's your alternative? Can you even name more than one world-class Chinese company?
*rolls eyes*
Yeah buddy I am. Are you aware that on every Apple Device it says "DESIGNED IN CALIFORNIA, ASSEMBLED IN CHINA."
There is a reason we do not build these products and it has been well covered through this thread. Can you name any good products made by those companies that you mentioned, that are actually built in the US. You know America SUCKS at making products when we need the media to convince us of this fact. Just watch TV, you do not see Apple advertising that they make there products in China, but you do see a bunch of other companies that slap a "Made in the USA" label gain Patriot approval. I avoid those products and save my money for products that have better quality; I dont innately hate american products, but experience has proved that they are inferior to build qualities of other nations. :apple::D
henrikrox
Apr 18, 05:23 PM
So disappointed in how mac rumors is turning out. There is just good stuff about apple. Nothing about the 7% down in stock the last 16 days.
Bah. Macrumors have gotten so terrible and flooded with people with anger problems and not enough mods to filter stuff.
Bah. Macrumors have gotten so terrible and flooded with people with anger problems and not enough mods to filter stuff.
avn
Apr 5, 01:19 PM
bad :apple:
bedifferent
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
If this is true, I'd be a little pissed lol. I just traded up from my two 23" ACD's for two 24" LED LCD's.
Hopefully this means with the Mac Pro rumors refresh and Final Cut release that Apple is refocusing on their neglected pro-line. Maybe we'll see a full line of dedicated displays instead of one stripped down iMac panel.
Hopefully this means with the Mac Pro rumors refresh and Final Cut release that Apple is refocusing on their neglected pro-line. Maybe we'll see a full line of dedicated displays instead of one stripped down iMac panel.
macindork
Apr 22, 10:24 AM
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
w_parietti22
Jul 29, 10:28 PM
crap. :( I just got a new phone.
SuperMatt
Apr 25, 09:24 AM
If somebody steals your phone, this info would be the LEAST of your worries. Get over it. This is the panic of the week. Everybody will forget about it in no time.
sunspot42
Apr 21, 03:08 PM
Funny to see you are basing a $4000 computer purchase on a $79 piece of crap-KEA furniture - LOL.
I live in a teeny apartment, so even if I pitched the wardrobe I'd likely still be space constrained in whatever I replaced it with. Also, getting rid of furniture and installing new furniture is an enormous PITA - especially when your existing $799 wardrobe is still in great condition.
And you can get a pretty sweet Mac Pro for around $2K. All I'd need for the next few years, anyhow.
Also, shrinking the Mac Pro would cut down on the space it takes to store inventory at Apple stores, and reduce shipping costs by slashing both the weight and volume of the product. It would make the product more price competitive and/or more profitable.
I live in a teeny apartment, so even if I pitched the wardrobe I'd likely still be space constrained in whatever I replaced it with. Also, getting rid of furniture and installing new furniture is an enormous PITA - especially when your existing $799 wardrobe is still in great condition.
And you can get a pretty sweet Mac Pro for around $2K. All I'd need for the next few years, anyhow.
Also, shrinking the Mac Pro would cut down on the space it takes to store inventory at Apple stores, and reduce shipping costs by slashing both the weight and volume of the product. It would make the product more price competitive and/or more profitable.
vendettabass
Sep 11, 03:56 AM
I'd love that media mac! good work!
R0bert
Nov 23, 04:55 PM
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/6825/2003902622332125549_rs.jpg
markcres
Apr 25, 11:13 AM
Jobs is spinning his BS again as usual. Even when there is overwheming evidence to the contrary...he still insults the intelligence of his customers who he clearly regards as beneath him.
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
gikku
May 6, 12:40 AM
not happening. not in the short-term.
the intel processor and bootcamp into windows is the Mac's door key to enterprise.
the intel processor and bootcamp into windows is the Mac's door key to enterprise.
meecect
May 6, 12:40 AM
Another option:
they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.
they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.
iApples
Apr 10, 02:21 AM
Here
280594
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
280594
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
SLCentral
Aug 2, 06:20 PM
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I completely get what you're saying. After using my 30" for a little over a year on a daily basis, when using any other system, it's VERY tough. And even when I am using my 30", I often crave even more real estate, especially when working with digital photos, but even when I'm just surfing the web.
But, at this point in time (2006), I think a 40"+ screen is just simply too large for the average deskspace. Perhaps there's a place for them in production studios, etc., but even with that market, which is already limited, cost is just too big of a factor. To make a panel @ 40" with a resolution of 3840x2400, or even smaller, would be ASTRONOMICAL. We're talking at least $6K for each display, and the power needed to run that doesn't yet exist. Even Quad-SLI on PC's are having trouble running games at native res. Imagine Motion (since we all know OS X isn't a gaming platform) at 3840x2400? The power just isn't there yet.
Now, I agree, larger screens are the way of the future. But I just don't think that future is here yet.
Then again, $20 says I'm wrong :).
Zadillo
Aug 4, 04:13 PM
Why not compare the sizes?
If you look both MBP are 1" tall with the lid closed while the Sony TX series is 1.12" tall and the SZ is 1.5" tall (at the thickest... which is up near the drive area).
That's not really true of the SZ series either. The SZ ranges from 0.9 to 1.33" or so, and the drive area is in the thin part of it at the front:
http://dynamism.com/images/gallery/imgsz1_8.jpg
If you look both MBP are 1" tall with the lid closed while the Sony TX series is 1.12" tall and the SZ is 1.5" tall (at the thickest... which is up near the drive area).
That's not really true of the SZ series either. The SZ ranges from 0.9 to 1.33" or so, and the drive area is in the thin part of it at the front:
http://dynamism.com/images/gallery/imgsz1_8.jpg
Tilpots
Apr 9, 09:44 PM
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
Yeah for common ground! Our relationship just hit an inception point and I think things are looking up. :)
Yeah for common ground! Our relationship just hit an inception point and I think things are looking up. :)
Jape
Nov 3, 01:28 PM
anyone here have a Itouch they can use to test it out with?
World Citizen
May 4, 03:03 PM
I want my Lion on a stick with a ThunderTail!
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
Finallyfamous
Apr 10, 12:11 PM
I agree with I student UK using the constraints of / makes it rather ambiguos (did I spell that right) as I originally read it. I believed the 2(9+3) to be in the denominator in which case the answer is clearly 2
nbs2
Nov 22, 02:08 PM
Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no. <snip>
You break my heart. Something tells me that this won't be the phone for me. I would put money on it having the one thing I don't want - a camera. I don't want it, I don't need it, and it's a pain to have one.
Although, I was thinking that there would be just a couple of BTO options - maybe a camera and BT - not an entire gamut of BTO possabilities. I agree that too many would be expensive (and the firmware would end up too complicated).
You break my heart. Something tells me that this won't be the phone for me. I would put money on it having the one thing I don't want - a camera. I don't want it, I don't need it, and it's a pain to have one.
Although, I was thinking that there would be just a couple of BTO options - maybe a camera and BT - not an entire gamut of BTO possabilities. I agree that too many would be expensive (and the firmware would end up too complicated).
ReanimationLP
Aug 3, 01:37 AM
Play nice now boys and girls.
Does it really matter how much extra battery you'll get? Jeez. o.O
I'm sure you'll be able to crank out some more, but battery life all depends on real world usage more than anything else.
Now that I think about it, I'm willing to bet they will be upgraded shortly to Core 2, the mini and the iMac that is, since its socketable.
Maybe thats why the MBP Pro is not socketed, they wanted to design a new casing for the Core 2 Macbook Pros, and didnt want people
just opening they're Core 1 models and just dropping the new Core 2 into it.
Does it really matter how much extra battery you'll get? Jeez. o.O
I'm sure you'll be able to crank out some more, but battery life all depends on real world usage more than anything else.
Now that I think about it, I'm willing to bet they will be upgraded shortly to Core 2, the mini and the iMac that is, since its socketable.
Maybe thats why the MBP Pro is not socketed, they wanted to design a new casing for the Core 2 Macbook Pros, and didnt want people
just opening they're Core 1 models and just dropping the new Core 2 into it.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:17 AM
I don't blame any company who looks at what Apple has done to people who are trying to create services for the iOS platform and decides that they don't want to go there.
hawken1
Jul 29, 09:54 PM
http://www.devilducky.com/media/46492/
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..