likemyorbs
Mar 22, 12:12 PM
Are you serious?
lol no, look at my previous post.
lol no, look at my previous post.
gwangung
Apr 21, 11:59 AM
If someone breaks into my home and hacks into my Mac (using the OS X DVD to do a password reset), I have a lot more worries than whether they know how to find out what neighborhoods� cell towers I�ve used! Luckily, encrypting your iPhone backup is simple, automatic, and unbreakable; and has the added benefit that then your iPhone�s keychain gets included in the backup. (Otherwise it doesn�t, with good reason.)
If, on the other hand, they steal my phone, they�re unlikely to stop me from remotely shredding it so fast their head spins :)
That said, dumping the old cached data is good practice, and Apple really needs to do so. I�d be surprised if they didn�t patch it to do just that. So: good catch! (Of course, this was noticed months ago.)
Yep, both of these are good points.
If, on the other hand, they steal my phone, they�re unlikely to stop me from remotely shredding it so fast their head spins :)
That said, dumping the old cached data is good practice, and Apple really needs to do so. I�d be surprised if they didn�t patch it to do just that. So: good catch! (Of course, this was noticed months ago.)
Yep, both of these are good points.
itsmeGAV
Feb 8, 05:52 AM
It's keeping the OEM 17s, I look the OEM+ look. It's simple and good looking.
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
cburton04
Feb 7, 08:41 PM
Hopefully it's not too big an image... e90 m3. i love this this thing to bits.
I love the sedan.
I love the sedan.
tedrjr03
Feb 6, 09:52 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/5299339710_547865898a.jpg
New pickup. 2002 Subaru WRX
New pickup. 2002 Subaru WRX
wmmk
Nov 27, 05:30 PM
I hope it happens. This would not only be great for Mac Mini buyers, but also laptop owners. We already have 13-17 inches of screen real estate, so 17 more sounds just about perfect! I just hope there'd be a non iSight option so that laptop users wouldn't be paying a premium for something they already paid for.
btallada9870
Mar 22, 08:53 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)
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
you could make the same argument for android. i don't think we'd have anything near the cell phones we have today without apple, but i also didn't really follow the market before then.
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
you could make the same argument for android. i don't think we'd have anything near the cell phones we have today without apple, but i also didn't really follow the market before then.
xi mezmerize ix
Feb 19, 01:41 PM
Not much I can do with my dorm.
zoozx
Sep 7, 08:14 AM
ps this download system will never work until the time it takes to DL a full movie is under 2 hrs. Most films now are 4-8 gigs.
spencers
Feb 23, 02:41 PM
Fantastic setup, would love to get those speakers, I'm in the UK also, what make/model of speakers ?
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
Elegant setup. What speaker is that?
Stop being lazy and click the Flickr link he posted and you'll find out. :p
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 04:39 PM
I see people here still digging up the old WORD and WINDOWS argument that gets debunked every damn time someone brings it up.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
MS bulldog
Aug 29, 10:27 AM
Only if they don't drop prices. Just depends what they charge, if they had core solo for $399 sales would go through the roof.
hopefully that will be the price for future refurbs
hopefully that will be the price for future refurbs
guzhogi
Nov 15, 10:08 AM
I wonder how much of a performance boost (if any) there would be if someone made a whole operating from scratch. Totally new compiler, new programming libraries, new everything to take full advantage of all of today's technologies. This would take several years and hard work, I know, so don't flame me.
I was a programming major in college (though I sucked at it). I know that a lot of the libraries I used in it (like iostream and string) have been around since the '80's. Back then, consumer computers didn't have 4 core, 64-bit processors and high end video cards and broadband internet. While the libraries have been updated a little to work, they're not optimized for all the new technologies we have now.
I was a programming major in college (though I sucked at it). I know that a lot of the libraries I used in it (like iostream and string) have been around since the '80's. Back then, consumer computers didn't have 4 core, 64-bit processors and high end video cards and broadband internet. While the libraries have been updated a little to work, they're not optimized for all the new technologies we have now.
Benguitar
Nov 25, 07:45 PM
Yeah that didn't make sense. ;)
FWIW, I really love Pelican cases. I'll be buying one soon to put a couple guns in. Kudos to you for taking care of your $h!t.
You will most likely never drive a Ferrari at full speed, My glasses may never be crushed by a truck. But it's nice to have the speed/protection. :cool:
And thank you for the kudos, It's something my family (grandfather mostly) taught me to do all my life. :)
FWIW, I really love Pelican cases. I'll be buying one soon to put a couple guns in. Kudos to you for taking care of your $h!t.
You will most likely never drive a Ferrari at full speed, My glasses may never be crushed by a truck. But it's nice to have the speed/protection. :cool:
And thank you for the kudos, It's something my family (grandfather mostly) taught me to do all my life. :)
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:58 PM
I am not interested in Windows APIs. That's how the hardware capabilities are referred to. OpenGL has tended to lag in new features, so if the hardware has extra capabilities, it will probably support some future OpenGL version too.
OpenGL is much more like Direct3D. A part of DirectX. DirectX is just a collection of multiple API's. DirectSound is like OpenAL for example. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with.
OpenGL is much more like Direct3D. A part of DirectX. DirectX is just a collection of multiple API's. DirectSound is like OpenAL for example. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with.
plinden
Jul 19, 03:47 PM
There are more details here - http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060719/sfw089.html?.v=60
At the end of the page is a breakdown in the sales figures.
Desktop sales are down 14% on last quarter, and 23% on a year ago, but laptop sales are up a whopping 60% on last quarter and 61% on a year ago.
At the end of the page is a breakdown in the sales figures.
Desktop sales are down 14% on last quarter, and 23% on a year ago, but laptop sales are up a whopping 60% on last quarter and 61% on a year ago.
Fuzzputer
Jan 3, 02:10 PM
Hi,
I have had a look at Macrumor's buyers guide. Except for the MacBook that is even very new, everything else is apparently only half way through its life cycle. So it would really be surprising if something got updated. Is this even more of a reason to expect someting REALLY NEW??:eek:
I have had a look at Macrumor's buyers guide. Except for the MacBook that is even very new, everything else is apparently only half way through its life cycle. So it would really be surprising if something got updated. Is this even more of a reason to expect someting REALLY NEW??:eek:
zwida
Sep 6, 08:01 PM
I hope that one day the wealthiest working person could only make 2x to 3x of the poorest working person. God, would that change the world for ever. If the butcher makes 7 bucks and hour a doctor should make 12bucks a waitress 6bucks the president 15 bucks, no more no less... sick and tired of all this GREED!!!!
Huh?
What's greed have to do with it?
Huh?
What's greed have to do with it?
Evangelion
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
Most benchmarks show the difference between the 1.5 Ghz Solo and 1.66 Ghz Duo to be about 15% for single-core apps (games) and about 30% for dual-core aware apps. So not really more than 100% more performance.
And if you run several apps at once (like most of us do), the increase is quite big indeed. And dual-core/SMP makes the system feel smoother, because no app can consume 100% of CPU-cycles.
Why are people always talking about speed of a single app? How about running several apps at once?
And if you run several apps at once (like most of us do), the increase is quite big indeed. And dual-core/SMP makes the system feel smoother, because no app can consume 100% of CPU-cycles.
Why are people always talking about speed of a single app? How about running several apps at once?
popelife
Jan 2, 06:48 AM
Leopard for G3s, please.
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
Thereby adding $300 to the price...? Doesn't seem likely.
Need four cores? Buy a Mac Pro.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
Maybe I'm weird, but I really like the MB keyboard (I did some tests and found that I can touch-type significantly faster on the MB keyboard). The MBP keyboard looks old-fashioned and fussy by comparison, and the tactile feedback from those rounded-off edges isn't very good. So I really want the reverse - a cleaner-design MacBook Pro that uses something more like the MB keyboard.
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
Thereby adding $300 to the price...? Doesn't seem likely.
Need four cores? Buy a Mac Pro.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
Maybe I'm weird, but I really like the MB keyboard (I did some tests and found that I can touch-type significantly faster on the MB keyboard). The MBP keyboard looks old-fashioned and fussy by comparison, and the tactile feedback from those rounded-off edges isn't very good. So I really want the reverse - a cleaner-design MacBook Pro that uses something more like the MB keyboard.
LimeiBook86
Apr 19, 12:08 PM
My iMac is a bit over 5 years old, perfect time for an upgrade! :) All I'd like is a Thunderbolt port and a decent graphics chipset, I'm sure everything else will be fine. And a heck of a lot faster than my 2GHz Core Duo! Come on Apple, show us what you've got. :D
quadgirl
Sep 1, 01:07 PM
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
generik
Oct 14, 07:03 PM
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
No comments:
Post a Comment