lordonuthin
Apr 4, 07:25 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 12 million points!
Thanks.
Thanks.
Eraserhead
Nov 27, 01:30 PM
I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.
leftbanke7
Mar 21, 09:39 AM
Actually it's $1800-3000, for a G5 64 bit computer. Where do you buy your computers from? No wonder Apple can't dispell the myths even Mac users don't know how much they cost!
Well, unless you have some implant in your head to attach the computer to, you'll need a monitor as well smart guy *wink*
Well, unless you have some implant in your head to attach the computer to, you'll need a monitor as well smart guy *wink*
milo
Jul 19, 04:34 PM
Wow, already up to 75% intel machines. So much for the stupid notion that nobody wants intel because there are still big apps that aren't universal.
termite
Nov 15, 11:23 AM
My Wife and I each have a ton-o-spam to process, and leave our Mail.apps open all the time. Mail.app uses up a full core for a few minutes at a time (G5 2.0GHz). So occasionally the computer is fully loaded just from the suckiness of Mail.app. It's very distruptive to doing anything else on the computer -- watching videos becomes very pretty much impossible. The kids sometimes leave their Safaris pointed at some flashy website which, between the two kids, takes another half-core.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
digitalbiker
Sep 7, 11:29 PM
"G5" is processor branding which refers to the 970 chipset, not the design of the machine itself, so you are using that terminology incorrectly. Do people go around saying, "Gee, that new Pentium Dell sure is nice!" :p :D It's the equivalent of saying that you like the design of the V10 BMW when in fact you mean the M5. If the current iMac design only housed G5 chips, and was changed when the Intel transition occurred, then fine, that model could be associated with the G5 chip, however this is obviously not the case.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
No worries, just pointing out how you are in error. :cool:
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
twoodcc
Sep 6, 12:01 PM
Remind me to never ask you for computer advice.
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
fine by me.....do what you will. that's them, but what about their kids? or anyone else who ever uses it? what about backing up their data?*
say what you will, but a dvd burner is always worth it
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
fine by me.....do what you will. that's them, but what about their kids? or anyone else who ever uses it? what about backing up their data?*
say what you will, but a dvd burner is always worth it
urbanj
Apr 26, 03:00 PM
does apple compare themselves with other brand using the term "apps"
If they do I'd think you'd have to say it's a generic term since apple is calling the stuff run on other devices apps as well.
If they do I'd think you'd have to say it's a generic term since apple is calling the stuff run on other devices apps as well.
MacLuvin
Apr 6, 11:18 AM
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
So when you click on the Launchpad icon everything comes up smooth and no delay/lag or doesn't act sluggish? just the opening of folders ?
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
So when you click on the Launchpad icon everything comes up smooth and no delay/lag or doesn't act sluggish? just the opening of folders ?
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
rmwebs
Mar 22, 04:31 PM
Disk space aside, there's nothing wrong with the current iPod Classic. It doesnt need bluetooth, microphones, cameras, etc - the hint is in the name...CLASSIC.
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
Thunderbird
May 2, 08:13 PM
Haha so many mad fanboys. " APL Y U RUIN MY OSX"
.
LOL...All your apps are belong to us!
This is dumb...but then, since when is Apple about intuitiveness, consistency and ergonomic efficiency?
.
LOL...All your apps are belong to us!
This is dumb...but then, since when is Apple about intuitiveness, consistency and ergonomic efficiency?
ingenious
Apr 7, 09:10 AM
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it..... :D
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2004/tc2004047_5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it..... :D
plinden
Jul 19, 03:53 PM
Other than recently, how often have Mac sales been in the million+ a quarter? Didn't 2002 or something only see that many shipped the entire year?
No - according to http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html Mac sales have been above 3 million since 1998. But it looks like Apple's on track for > 5 million in the highest sales figures ever.
Where are all you "Apple is doomed" sayers now?:p :D
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
No, please re-read the figures - it's 1.327 million Macs for the last quarter.
No - according to http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html Mac sales have been above 3 million since 1998. But it looks like Apple's on track for > 5 million in the highest sales figures ever.
Where are all you "Apple is doomed" sayers now?:p :D
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
No, please re-read the figures - it's 1.327 million Macs for the last quarter.
nemaslov
Mar 23, 01:36 PM
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
citizenzen
Mar 19, 08:26 PM
Truth, as ever, is the first casualty of war, and nobody seems to care as long as they can fabricate a good narrative.
I'm not smart enough to know what the right thing to do is in Libya. But it does make me roll my eyes to hear the CNN anchor talk about how Qaddafi is "thumbing his nose at America".
The propoganda machine is cranked-up and running. :rolleyes:
Let's go kill some badguys!
I'm not smart enough to know what the right thing to do is in Libya. But it does make me roll my eyes to hear the CNN anchor talk about how Qaddafi is "thumbing his nose at America".
The propoganda machine is cranked-up and running. :rolleyes:
Let's go kill some badguys!
gwangung
Apr 21, 11:49 AM
Once again, people are going off half cocked, without knowing anything about either the law or the technical details (and, sorry, but the details MATTER).
pjo
Sep 10, 10:26 AM
Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...
well... nothing stops you from connecting it to your iMac and spanning across both monitors ;)
Edit: well.. Multimedia said it first - and better.
well... nothing stops you from connecting it to your iMac and spanning across both monitors ;)
Edit: well.. Multimedia said it first - and better.
ethernet76
Sep 6, 10:47 AM
i agree. i would never buy a computer that didn't have a dvd burner....and i'd never advise someone else to either
Remind me to never ask you for computer advice.
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
Remind me to never ask you for computer advice.
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
They still haven't used the superdrive to burn a dvd.
SpiderDude
Jun 24, 12:18 PM
No chance. The ergonomics would be a disaster.
I second that. I have both an 27 iMac and the first aluminum Macbook with a Multi-Touch trackpad and touching on a screen would be quite uncomfortable. I'd rather use my macbook's Multi-Touch trackpad than the magic mouse.
:apple:
I second that. I have both an 27 iMac and the first aluminum Macbook with a Multi-Touch trackpad and touching on a screen would be quite uncomfortable. I'd rather use my macbook's Multi-Touch trackpad than the magic mouse.
:apple:
Eidorian
Aug 26, 11:00 AM
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there. (Woodcrest's TDP is 85W by the way...)
And look here (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html)
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there. (Woodcrest's TDP is 85W by the way...)
And look here (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html)
zedsdead
Jan 13, 04:03 PM
Apple will NOT do that, however, remember the collapsing port patent filed by Apple?
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
lordonuthin
Mar 25, 12:24 PM
congrats to 4JNA for 6 million points!
Ditto! and of course to everyone else makin' points for us! :)
Ditto! and of course to everyone else makin' points for us! :)
osx11
May 2, 04:21 PM
TO ALL FANBOYS:
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
skottichan
Apr 1, 02:00 AM
I assume Safari 5.1 is in this refresh of Lion Preview?
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:I retract my previous statement; the current build seems just as bad as the last and that's on the aforementioned 8GB toting i7 MBP. Even with Flash disabled and harmful scripts blocked, it's a hog capable of eating a combined 3GB or more on its own; the split processes in Activity Monitor just make it look nicer.
Unrelated: does anyone else have a problem keeping their Google Calendars synced in iCal? I hop in and it shows me the local calendars, but I end up having to go into settings and manually recheck my Delegates to get the server-side calendars to trickle back down.
Is it faster? How is memory the resource usage? :cool:I retract my previous statement; the current build seems just as bad as the last and that's on the aforementioned 8GB toting i7 MBP. Even with Flash disabled and harmful scripts blocked, it's a hog capable of eating a combined 3GB or more on its own; the split processes in Activity Monitor just make it look nicer.
Unrelated: does anyone else have a problem keeping their Google Calendars synced in iCal? I hop in and it shows me the local calendars, but I end up having to go into settings and manually recheck my Delegates to get the server-side calendars to trickle back down.
No comments:
Post a Comment