Schizoid
Mar 24, 06:57 PM
This is potentially great news...
I had a stock ATI 5850 in the Mac Pro for a while, OS X didn't like it but Windows ran it perfectly... in the end bit the bullet and bought a 5870 Mac edition for about twice the market value of a standard PC card!
Great decision though, the Mac now runs about 20 times faster... not just games either... the whole UI is great now (I guess thanks to OpenCL et al)
...and whoever decided the GT120 was a good card for a Mac Pro needs to be shot!
I had a stock ATI 5850 in the Mac Pro for a while, OS X didn't like it but Windows ran it perfectly... in the end bit the bullet and bought a 5870 Mac edition for about twice the market value of a standard PC card!
Great decision though, the Mac now runs about 20 times faster... not just games either... the whole UI is great now (I guess thanks to OpenCL et al)
...and whoever decided the GT120 was a good card for a Mac Pro needs to be shot!
~Shard~
Sep 6, 08:48 PM
PS - please stop whinging about your MB & MBP in the iMac thread, I'm sure there's more appropriate venues...
Please stop whinging about iMacs, AIOs, minitowers, etc. in the Mac mini thread. :p :cool:
Please stop whinging about iMacs, AIOs, minitowers, etc. in the Mac mini thread. :p :cool:
bassfingers
Apr 26, 04:07 PM
well we all know who really controls the goverment and everyone involved ... companies. so whoever throws more money at them is obvs gonna win
silliness
silliness
(marc)
Mar 19, 05:12 PM
Historical observation: The Iraqi people never asked for US help, but there we were.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
SactoGuy18
Apr 12, 09:46 PM
charlesdjones1, I think the picture you showed is a very likely new "look" for the iPod classic--the "7G" model. It will get a smaller click wheel but larger display for better viewing of video, and will up the storage capacity from 160 GB to 220 GB with the new 1.8" hard drive.
Though I'm sure Apple wants to ditch the iPod Classic in favor of a 128 GB iPod touch, the current tight constraint on flash memory production may conspire against doing this.
Though I'm sure Apple wants to ditch the iPod Classic in favor of a 128 GB iPod touch, the current tight constraint on flash memory production may conspire against doing this.
SeaFox
Aug 18, 03:34 AM
I don't know how credible this particular Digitimes story is...
You must be new here.
[ducking]
I couldn't resist the old joke.
You must be new here.
[ducking]
I couldn't resist the old joke.
tipdrill407
Jul 13, 10:53 PM
Put it in the Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro 17" and I'm all over it. Would still like to see if HD-DVD prevails.
Now, I have a plasma hdtv that'll "do" 1080i and a dvd player that can output and upscale (if needed) to 1080i--can I burn 1080i sources and play the BR disk in my dvd player OR will I also need a BR player to view HD video? 25gb per side is a nice chunk o' storage though.
B
You'll neet a blu ray player. A non blu-ray dvd player does not have the correct laser to read a blu ray disc.
Now, I have a plasma hdtv that'll "do" 1080i and a dvd player that can output and upscale (if needed) to 1080i--can I burn 1080i sources and play the BR disk in my dvd player OR will I also need a BR player to view HD video? 25gb per side is a nice chunk o' storage though.
B
You'll neet a blu ray player. A non blu-ray dvd player does not have the correct laser to read a blu ray disc.
codymac
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
Kinda. They are manual gear boxes with no clutch pedal. Shifting is either automatic or manual.
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
dalvin200
Oct 23, 06:47 AM
Well when you really think about it, at least one of these rumours has got to be true. We have MBP Merom rumours that cover every week from August til January 2007.
and you know this :)
it just bugs you when you dont get any indication of what's coming.. especially when you're on the fence as to whether to buy now or wait till tuesday..
maybe the pre-announcement of the iTV is a start of the turning trend? i think not.. :D
macrumors buyers guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/) says not to buy the MPB as an update is coming soon..
and you know this :)
it just bugs you when you dont get any indication of what's coming.. especially when you're on the fence as to whether to buy now or wait till tuesday..
maybe the pre-announcement of the iTV is a start of the turning trend? i think not.. :D
macrumors buyers guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/) says not to buy the MPB as an update is coming soon..
Ted Witcher
Mar 22, 05:40 PM
Oh, wait, I see. Voyager.
cube
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
Fusion is not just about graphics. Fusion has a DirectX 11 class GPU with true OpenCL, while Sandy Bridge and the next Atom have DirectX 10.1 class GPUs with an alpha of OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
Fusion is not just about graphics. Fusion has a DirectX 11 class GPU with true OpenCL, while Sandy Bridge and the next Atom have DirectX 10.1 class GPUs with an alpha of OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Transporteur
Feb 26, 12:25 PM
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
Evangelion
Aug 30, 02:27 AM
I've got hard facts to back up my claim. Do you have any for yours? :)
Those prices might not be valid anymore. And could you mention any of the reasons why anyone would use Yonah instead of Merom, if the prices are identical (more or less)?
Those prices might not be valid anymore. And could you mention any of the reasons why anyone would use Yonah instead of Merom, if the prices are identical (more or less)?
rdowns
Apr 26, 01:25 PM
Rovio's generic use of the word "App Store(s)" made me think about this issue when I watched the trailer with my daughter the other day.
If Apple retain the trademark, I wonder what they'll do to stop people and companies using it in this way?
Good point. My local ABC station tells you to, "go to any app store" to get their mobile apps. They make apps for iPhone, iPad, BB and Android.
If Apple retain the trademark, I wonder what they'll do to stop people and companies using it in this way?
Good point. My local ABC station tells you to, "go to any app store" to get their mobile apps. They make apps for iPhone, iPad, BB and Android.
BRLawyer
Apr 19, 02:05 PM
[SIZE=1]
Back on topic....... Supposedly, Ivy Bridge (next year?) will support USB 3. I wonder if it will be possible to have some sort of a Thunderbolt to USB 3 interface. I would hate to buy a new iMac now and not be able to take advantage of the USB 3 speed when it becomes more widely used in the next few years. Or is that not something to worry about?
Why would you want to use a SLOWER interface in the first place? As far as ports are concerned, TB should be able to work with everything (USB, FW etc.) anyway, provided the right adapters are used...
Back on topic....... Supposedly, Ivy Bridge (next year?) will support USB 3. I wonder if it will be possible to have some sort of a Thunderbolt to USB 3 interface. I would hate to buy a new iMac now and not be able to take advantage of the USB 3 speed when it becomes more widely used in the next few years. Or is that not something to worry about?
Why would you want to use a SLOWER interface in the first place? As far as ports are concerned, TB should be able to work with everything (USB, FW etc.) anyway, provided the right adapters are used...
antmarobel
Apr 1, 03:15 PM
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
MacPhilosopher
Sep 14, 12:04 PM
I just have a hard time picturing Toyota mailing me a new accelerator pedal and linkage and expecting me to install it. Wake up!
But why should Apple provide a permanent fix when the problem hasn't affected sales too much, and they can come out with a fixed phone next year and get you to stand in line to buy it.
Consumer Reports are doing exactly what their subscribers are paying them to do. I'm sorry if everyone isn't Apple Fanboys, but they get paid NOT to be anyone's Fanboy.
Did you really just compare installing a complicated accelerator system in your car to putting a bumper or case on your phone? You are Funny.
But why should Apple provide a permanent fix when the problem hasn't affected sales too much, and they can come out with a fixed phone next year and get you to stand in line to buy it.
Consumer Reports are doing exactly what their subscribers are paying them to do. I'm sorry if everyone isn't Apple Fanboys, but they get paid NOT to be anyone's Fanboy.
Did you really just compare installing a complicated accelerator system in your car to putting a bumper or case on your phone? You are Funny.
jav6454
Mar 25, 03:36 PM
Can the new GPU even do 1080p?... apparently so
takao
Jan 12, 02:33 PM
thinking back how many people called the iPod, mac mini and macbook name stupid it's very likely already confirmed
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
CalBoy
Mar 20, 02:15 PM
For the sake of consistency with the App Store and its censorship policies, it should be removed for containing offensive, disgusting content.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
I agree.
I think that if the App Store wasn't regulated, this app would clearly have standing to be in there, as would an app that was misogynistic, anti-semitic, or pro-flatulence.
However, Apple (and Steve Jobs in particular) has said that the App Store is meant to "protect" people from certain things (namely porn). Since Apple has the right to determine what goes into its store, I think it's fair to ask that an app that is more offensive than porn (most people disagree with this type of "therapy" and approve of homosexuality compared to the level of disagreement there is with porn) should be similarly removed from the App Store.
I think there's also a Pandora's Box in that if this App delves into trying to "cure" people of some non-existent psychosis, could Apple be guilty of aiding and abetting the practice of medicine/psychology without a license? I'm not saying there's an answer to this, but it certainly does leave the door open to more problems.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
I agree.
I think that if the App Store wasn't regulated, this app would clearly have standing to be in there, as would an app that was misogynistic, anti-semitic, or pro-flatulence.
However, Apple (and Steve Jobs in particular) has said that the App Store is meant to "protect" people from certain things (namely porn). Since Apple has the right to determine what goes into its store, I think it's fair to ask that an app that is more offensive than porn (most people disagree with this type of "therapy" and approve of homosexuality compared to the level of disagreement there is with porn) should be similarly removed from the App Store.
I think there's also a Pandora's Box in that if this App delves into trying to "cure" people of some non-existent psychosis, could Apple be guilty of aiding and abetting the practice of medicine/psychology without a license? I'm not saying there's an answer to this, but it certainly does leave the door open to more problems.
speedythecat
Oct 6, 01:23 PM
Thanks. That looks like a great case there too!
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:35 AM
Highly unlikely that the Quad chip will end up in the iTV. Especially at the already announced $299 proce point of iTV
It will be a loss leader than. Apple sells these boxes for $299 and make their money when they sell movies.
It will be a loss leader than. Apple sells these boxes for $299 and make their money when they sell movies.
aswitcher
Jan 12, 04:39 AM
Maybe its MacBook Heir...
No comments:
Post a Comment