shawnce
Jul 20, 05:56 PM
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
Current PowerMacs have both of these... it supports ECC and has dual GigE
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
Current PowerMacs have both of these... it supports ECC and has dual GigE
afrowq
Apr 9, 09:55 PM
Uh, no. I do think that's what you meant. That's just not what you said.
Just because lots of people you know, plus a couple of people on these forums say that they've switched, you can't generalize that into a broad statement that covers everyone everywhere. It might be a localized trend in your area. Just like I can't say that just because none of my clients has switched platforms, that there's NO migration off FCP to AVID or Premier.
Uh, except I said "lots of professionals" and then you claimed I meant "professionals that I know" and then you acknowledged that it's not just professionals that I know.
Do you honestly think the people I know and the people that responded with a similar sentiment on this message board are the ONLY pros who have switched to Premiere? Are you one of those extreme skeptic empiricists that doesn't believe Antarctica exists, for example, because you've never been there?
Just because lots of people you know, plus a couple of people on these forums say that they've switched, you can't generalize that into a broad statement that covers everyone everywhere. It might be a localized trend in your area. Just like I can't say that just because none of my clients has switched platforms, that there's NO migration off FCP to AVID or Premier.
Uh, except I said "lots of professionals" and then you claimed I meant "professionals that I know" and then you acknowledged that it's not just professionals that I know.
Do you honestly think the people I know and the people that responded with a similar sentiment on this message board are the ONLY pros who have switched to Premiere? Are you one of those extreme skeptic empiricists that doesn't believe Antarctica exists, for example, because you've never been there?
Erasmus
Aug 27, 04:08 AM
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:17 AM
Most people use their MBA for browsing, youtube videos, email, office apps and perhaps video conferencing. None of which will be bottlenecked by the Intel IGP. If you're doing something above and beyond this that will be negatively affected by the CPU, you are in fact, the minority.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:35 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
I thought they said that there was not any concerns?
There was never anything to worry about. However, paranoia strikes, everyone goes mad without any reason, so what is Apple supposed to do? Note that the same paranoia has been striking against Windows phones as well now (look at theregister.com), with dozens and dozens of clueless idiots complaining that Windows is even worse than Apple, or equally bad as Apple, or almost as bad as Apple, based on the fact that Windows is using the same crowd sourcing that Apple (and Google) uses, and a general misunderstanding of what is actually happening.
The only actual _real_ privacy problem that I have seen so far is that Google's database (they have a database of WiFi locations, just as Apple, Windows, Skyhook, and I think Nokia) is not secured enough and lets anyone get access to lookup the location of any WiFi base station (my home network is located within about 100 meters or about 20 homes; the centre of the circle is quite exactly where I live). Which means if for some reason you want to go into hiding, you better don't take your WiFi router with you. (People got all paranoid about the iPhone, but anyone trying to find you first has to find your iPhone, and usually that means they've found you as well, whether there is any data on the phone or not). This problem with Google's database affects _anyone_ with a WiFi router in the whole world, whether they have any phone or not.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Apple sends this preferably over WiFi, in which case it costs you almost nothing. But you have benefits: Your GPS works immediately when turned on instead of taking up to several minutes (like the bloody TomTom in my car does, which is pretty annoying at times), and you can find yourself quite precisely on a map in the middle of London where GPS just doesn't work because of all the tall buildings; New Yorkers probably appreciate it just as much.
rorschach
Apr 25, 01:42 PM
"privacy invasion"? How? Neither the file nor any of the information in it goes anywhere but the user's iOS device and their computer.
Are they going to sue AT&T or Verizon too? The carriers have the same location information.
Are they going to sue AT&T or Verizon too? The carriers have the same location information.
MacRumors
Apr 27, 07:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Bakey
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
Im guessing hopefully by the years end for the G5.... :) :)
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
Adamb18c5
Jun 9, 09:17 PM
Bibbz: I'm in the dfw area which radio shack do you work at? Would like to go through you for my next iPhone since know what's going on. I will be trading in my current 3gs.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
BRLawyer
Aug 20, 05:34 AM
The only conclusion following the advent of the duo MacPro x Leopard is this: Microsoft Windows is dead.
Adamb18c5
Jun 9, 10:25 PM
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
I tried to PM you too couldn't get it to work either. You can email me at adamb18c5@gmail
I tried to PM you too couldn't get it to work either. You can email me at adamb18c5@gmail
iphones4evry1
Jun 8, 10:51 PM
I'm wondering though, what would be the advantages/disadvantages to buying it at Radio Shack vs AT&T vs The Apple Store? Once I have the item purchased, will I notice any sort of difference what-so-ever?
Cheers.
Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference. Whenever I go into an Apple Store to get help/support with my iPhone3G, they always help me, regardless.
I purchased my iPhone3G at one Apple Store, and when it started giving me problems, I took it to a different Apple Store and they replaced it with a brand new phone. Of course, it's possible that because I had bought it at an Apple Store, it mattered, but generally, I've sensed that regardless of where you bought it, because it is an Apple product (obviously, plus your serial number in your settings menu), Apple Stores treat you like any other Apple customer. (I recommend you call your Apple Store and ask them "If I buy it at Radio Shack, will the Apple Store provide full support and replacement, as if I had purchased it at the Apple Store?")
The drawback... if you needed to get support for the phone, you'd have to drive to an Apple Store (that's a long way for you, and none of the AT&T guys around my house (about 10 AT&T stores) know anything about service/support for the iPhone - they just tell me to go to the Apple Store.
Mine began freezing within the first 15 days. Went to ATT and they gave me so much trouble when trying to exchange it. They ended up not wanting to exchange it for me and said they don't take returns ... SO then i went to apple store, even though i bought it from ATT, they quickly opened up a new one and gave me a brand new one, no questions asked (just their standard serial number checks).
Earendil, there you go. Buy it on Apple's website, and if you ever have a problem, you can hop into your car and drive 90min up to the Apple store.
.
Cheers.
Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference. Whenever I go into an Apple Store to get help/support with my iPhone3G, they always help me, regardless.
I purchased my iPhone3G at one Apple Store, and when it started giving me problems, I took it to a different Apple Store and they replaced it with a brand new phone. Of course, it's possible that because I had bought it at an Apple Store, it mattered, but generally, I've sensed that regardless of where you bought it, because it is an Apple product (obviously, plus your serial number in your settings menu), Apple Stores treat you like any other Apple customer. (I recommend you call your Apple Store and ask them "If I buy it at Radio Shack, will the Apple Store provide full support and replacement, as if I had purchased it at the Apple Store?")
The drawback... if you needed to get support for the phone, you'd have to drive to an Apple Store (that's a long way for you, and none of the AT&T guys around my house (about 10 AT&T stores) know anything about service/support for the iPhone - they just tell me to go to the Apple Store.
Mine began freezing within the first 15 days. Went to ATT and they gave me so much trouble when trying to exchange it. They ended up not wanting to exchange it for me and said they don't take returns ... SO then i went to apple store, even though i bought it from ATT, they quickly opened up a new one and gave me a brand new one, no questions asked (just their standard serial number checks).
Earendil, there you go. Buy it on Apple's website, and if you ever have a problem, you can hop into your car and drive 90min up to the Apple store.
.
laurim
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
If the chicken littles had any idea how transparent and documented their lives already are, they would never leave the house. It amazes me how many people think "other people" are trying to find out what they do in their mundane lives. Some egos!
I hate to think that a decent way to track potential terrorist movements was ruined by all of this bs. Imagine how much good information could have been had if a terrorist was arrested and his cell phone record scanned to find out where other terrorists are meeting. But no, you people have to tell them to delete the file. Thanks!
I hate to think that a decent way to track potential terrorist movements was ruined by all of this bs. Imagine how much good information could have been had if a terrorist was arrested and his cell phone record scanned to find out where other terrorists are meeting. But no, you people have to tell them to delete the file. Thanks!
bad03xtreme
Apr 25, 02:28 PM
I should have become a lawyer.
bretm
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
How about an interim update? All they need really is a software update to bring all the little widgets and candy that clutter up the androids. Their camera is still the best IMHO. And ease of syncing is still the best. And don't forget- it's an iPod. Seriously the android is just more complicated for most things. It doesn't do well (anything) with embedded QT and it's insanely lacking in consistency- which is why it's the love of techie IT types. They love to be in the know. It's PC vs Mac all over again.
How about an interim update? All they need really is a software update to bring all the little widgets and candy that clutter up the androids. Their camera is still the best IMHO. And ease of syncing is still the best. And don't forget- it's an iPod. Seriously the android is just more complicated for most things. It doesn't do well (anything) with embedded QT and it's insanely lacking in consistency- which is why it's the love of techie IT types. They love to be in the know. It's PC vs Mac all over again.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 19, 02:25 PM
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard™ cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
bretm
Jul 20, 10:45 AM
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
I think I used a SE 25 with a 12" monitor.
I also remember the first mac I purchased was the cheapest PowerMac they had. I remember upgrading the RAM from 8mb to 16mb and it cost over $300 for that 8mb chip!
jclardy
Mar 26, 11:14 AM
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Morpheus_
Jul 14, 04:54 PM
Dear Steve,
The iMac might be fine, but I don't need to pay for another monitor - I have a 20" and maybe I'll update that someday. I like expandability/flexibility in my displays, as well as my hard drives and hopefully my CPU.
The Mac Mini is not powerful enough.
The Mac Pro is too expensive, too top-end.
So Steve, will there be a "Mac" (not Pro) line? (How about "Big Mac"? Oh, that's taken...)
I basically want something that is good for gaming (in OS X and hence also in Windows, if necessary), but not ludicrously expensive. Something like I would have built myself in the years past - a good but not ridiculous CPU, a good but not ridiculous graphics card, and a nice amount of memory and storage -- then just throw it in a tower.
Maybe there will be a lower-end "Mac Pro", but it just doesn't make sense following the "Pro" nomenclature.
The iMac might be fine, but I don't need to pay for another monitor - I have a 20" and maybe I'll update that someday. I like expandability/flexibility in my displays, as well as my hard drives and hopefully my CPU.
The Mac Mini is not powerful enough.
The Mac Pro is too expensive, too top-end.
So Steve, will there be a "Mac" (not Pro) line? (How about "Big Mac"? Oh, that's taken...)
I basically want something that is good for gaming (in OS X and hence also in Windows, if necessary), but not ludicrously expensive. Something like I would have built myself in the years past - a good but not ridiculous CPU, a good but not ridiculous graphics card, and a nice amount of memory and storage -- then just throw it in a tower.
Maybe there will be a lower-end "Mac Pro", but it just doesn't make sense following the "Pro" nomenclature.
seenew
Aug 27, 03:40 AM
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
TrollToddington
Apr 7, 01:17 AM
If you don't need the power of a MacBook Pro, then a white MacBook is the best bang for the buck. Period.Well, since you say so. I don't agree with you. Period.
sonnys
Jul 15, 05:04 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
I think we can look at what Apple has done with its other lineups this past year as a guide to the future. Based on what we've seen, I don't think Apple will be redesigning the Mac Pro case -- it's large enough to accommodate anything they wish to throw in there. I also think it's a great industrial design, physically alluding to the power within.
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
Having two optical drives makes sense if one of the drives is going to be BluRay -- isn't BluRay incompatible with writing DVD and HD-DVD content? It would make sense if one of the drives was BluRay, the other was HD-DVD, giving Mac Pro users access to the full spectrum of DVD authoring hardware. If two optical bays are provided, I believe this type of configuration will be offered.
I'll be watching the announcement closely, although my Dual 2.5 GHz G5 (single core) handles everything I throw at it and has never ever given me reason to even want to upgrade. However, if the new Mac Pro hits 3 GHz I may be very tempted... if it doesn't, I'll wait it out. If the new high end Mac Pro doesn't go to 3 GHz like Dell and others, the Mac Pro will sink plenty fast.
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 04:49 PM
Excellent post.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
No comments:
Post a Comment