tivoboy
Jul 21, 03:18 PM
I do wish they would update the macbooks, so Ican BUY ONE!
d0minick
Mar 31, 08:12 AM
I've been using the inverted scrolling for a few weeks. At first, it was very weird and found myself scrolling the wrong way often. However, after a few day, I started to "get" the metaphor and it became natural. Now when I go to work and use their computers, I feel the scrolling on XP is the opposite of what feels natural.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
Americanloti
Sep 17, 12:51 AM
Hello everyone,
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
ticman
Nov 13, 06:31 AM
Good for you Marvel2. How about a review after you use it. Tstreete did a great one but another perspective is always welcomed.
BTW do you use Navigon? Did you get the Live Traffic update? Love to hear how they each or both worked with the kit.
Thanks,
Mike
BTW do you use Navigon? Did you get the Live Traffic update? Love to hear how they each or both worked with the kit.
Thanks,
Mike
MacFly123
Mar 30, 11:51 AM
I don't see how Amazon's Cloud UI could be much better. It does follow Apple's UI, but hey, guess what? They're not Apple. Their UI IS very simple, I'd argue elegant and looks functional. As for a UI being 'cultural', you'll have to explain that one...
Lol, I didn't think that my statements would be very controversial, but apparently there are people here that do not quite have an eye for good design. Sorry.
Steve has spoken about Apple taking culture into their designs and products for many years. One example I listed is the beautiful new start menu in iMovie for iPad that is the marque of an old theater that even has the lights power up with authentic sound and visuals as the app opens to showcase your projects in a gallery of movie posters on the wall. Very creative and cultural!
Lol, I didn't think that my statements would be very controversial, but apparently there are people here that do not quite have an eye for good design. Sorry.
Steve has spoken about Apple taking culture into their designs and products for many years. One example I listed is the beautiful new start menu in iMovie for iPad that is the marque of an old theater that even has the lights power up with authentic sound and visuals as the app opens to showcase your projects in a gallery of movie posters on the wall. Very creative and cultural!
Frisco
Jul 29, 08:41 PM
I'd buy in a second, even if I had a Razr.
Daveoc64
May 4, 02:57 PM
Obviously Lion will not follow App Store conventions seeing as it isn't an app.
Why put it in the App Store if it isn't an App?
Why put it in the App Store if it isn't an App?
p0intblank
Jul 21, 04:40 PM
This is awesome news! I can't wait to see what Apple releases at WWDC '06. :D
Blacklabel34
Mar 30, 03:31 AM
So the factory is fine but the loading dock is damaged? And they had to shut down the factory because they can't figure out another way to bring in the supplies? :confused:
Sounds like we are not getting the whole story...
Sounds like we are not getting the whole story...
emotion
Aug 2, 11:02 AM
I like this guy. He's being reasonable. However, I'd bet that Apple does NOT update any other Macs to Core 2. Yet. Save that for Expo Paris.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
Don't forget that apple dont just compete with themselves but other PC manufacturers now, and that release schedule would put them way behind. I expect speedbump/updated MBP and iMac at least. Probably on a random Tuesday soon.
spacemanspifff
Mar 31, 03:44 AM
I for one am not really that bothered about Lion or any OS updates - I love to have the latest thing and all improvements are always good. However, in my opinion they need to fix the OS I have before they release another one! For example with the last "update" [10.6.7] my Open type fonts are now playing up and the wonderful new Mac App Store takes about a minute to launch!
I get very worried when I hear El-Jobso talking about post a PC world as if he has decided already that the PC is dead. I for one could not make a living using an iPad and an iPhone.
Macs have always historically been used by content creators and designers [like me]. If, sometime in the future, Apple plan to lock down the system like they do with the iOS then I will simply stop upgrading my system. I could carry on using the system I have now until I retire, so it makes no odds to me if they want to stop making "proper" macs. I would imagine the rest of the design community would feel the same.
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPad and an iPhone and I can see how for the vast majority of consumers these would fit the bill for all your computing needs. However, if these consumers are going to have something to look at or play with or listen to, then us designers need the tools to create stuff with and that means powerful PCs.
I get very worried when I hear El-Jobso talking about post a PC world as if he has decided already that the PC is dead. I for one could not make a living using an iPad and an iPhone.
Macs have always historically been used by content creators and designers [like me]. If, sometime in the future, Apple plan to lock down the system like they do with the iOS then I will simply stop upgrading my system. I could carry on using the system I have now until I retire, so it makes no odds to me if they want to stop making "proper" macs. I would imagine the rest of the design community would feel the same.
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPad and an iPhone and I can see how for the vast majority of consumers these would fit the bill for all your computing needs. However, if these consumers are going to have something to look at or play with or listen to, then us designers need the tools to create stuff with and that means powerful PCs.
andiwm2003
Aug 7, 02:10 PM
Pretty impressive specs, aside from the fairly hopeless 7300GT graphics card.
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
wow, it took a full three (3) posts till somebody complains about the GPU. that seems to be the only constant thing that survived even the intel transition.:D
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
wow, it took a full three (3) posts till somebody complains about the GPU. that seems to be the only constant thing that survived even the intel transition.:D
res1233
May 6, 04:31 AM
I'm off to start a new 'Dell in negotiations with Apple to license Mac OS X' rumor with a popular analyst. Story should be appearing on MR on Monday or Tuesday next week. Stay tuned.
You crazy bastard(Bad word, don't ban me bro). :D That would be pretty funny though.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Well, Xeons are closely related to their consumer counterparts. If Xeons can go dual-CPU, then it wouldn't be such a leap for an i7, even if it isn't possible yet. Most consumers most likely wouldn't even saturate a 4-core mac though. Eh, just food for thought I guess.
You crazy bastard(Bad word, don't ban me bro). :D That would be pretty funny though.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Well, Xeons are closely related to their consumer counterparts. If Xeons can go dual-CPU, then it wouldn't be such a leap for an i7, even if it isn't possible yet. Most consumers most likely wouldn't even saturate a 4-core mac though. Eh, just food for thought I guess.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 02:52 PM
Second why do you only save $300 when you opt for the 2Ghz model but the 3Ghz model costs $800 more???
Its relative to the processor you have selected. If you clicked the lower CPU the 3Ghz would be + even more. :rolleyes:
Its relative to the processor you have selected. If you clicked the lower CPU the 3Ghz would be + even more. :rolleyes:
milo
Sep 11, 01:14 PM
The only things comin out are the Video Rental service, and a size increase for the Nano.
Move along.
Should we laugh at you now, or wait until the announcment? :rolleyes:
Rumor has it Steve wasn't able to secure download rights..only rental. Guess we'll find out by this time tomorrow.
What's your source? Every rumor site I've seen (and especially Appleinsider, which has the best record lately) says sales.
I want firewire aswell usb 1 is far toooo slow. How my sposed to transfer films with USB, It will take all day.
With USB2, which transfers to iPod about the same speed as FW.
Move along.
Should we laugh at you now, or wait until the announcment? :rolleyes:
Rumor has it Steve wasn't able to secure download rights..only rental. Guess we'll find out by this time tomorrow.
What's your source? Every rumor site I've seen (and especially Appleinsider, which has the best record lately) says sales.
I want firewire aswell usb 1 is far toooo slow. How my sposed to transfer films with USB, It will take all day.
With USB2, which transfers to iPod about the same speed as FW.
jaduffy108
Nov 26, 03:24 PM
I want a Wacom Cintiq with an Apple computer inside.... seems simple enough to *me*.....
Hattig
Jul 30, 09:43 AM
How successful are MVNOs? Last I heard ESPN and Disney mobile are rumored to be shutting down due to low subscriber numbers.
Disney -> Steve Jobs -> Apple ;)
Who'd get a mobile phone on an ESPN or Disney network anyway? Free sport clips or Mickey Mouse backgrounds?
Hey dude, with all due consideration, bad fake screenshots don't even rank along side a rumour of a rumour as far as a useful source of information.
David:cool:
I don't usually have the time to find out if something's fake or not, but the /point/ of my post remains.
Disney -> Steve Jobs -> Apple ;)
Who'd get a mobile phone on an ESPN or Disney network anyway? Free sport clips or Mickey Mouse backgrounds?
Hey dude, with all due consideration, bad fake screenshots don't even rank along side a rumour of a rumour as far as a useful source of information.
David:cool:
I don't usually have the time to find out if something's fake or not, but the /point/ of my post remains.
boodyup
Mar 26, 09:58 PM
I just forked over 750 dollars for an ipad 2 and ipad 3 is coming out? Ouch!!! I already want it.
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
Once again, the seperating into 'smartphone' and 'tablet' markets makes little sense.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
That's bending the definition of a phone to the extreme. I can make phone calls on my Mac Pro too. It's only a teeny bit bulkier than my phone :rolleyes:. Should I consider my mac Pro as phone? Of course not.
Look. A tablet is not a phone, okay? Nobody is going to carry an iPad in his pants all day.
A tablet is much closer to being a replacement to a laptop than to being a phone.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
That's bending the definition of a phone to the extreme. I can make phone calls on my Mac Pro too. It's only a teeny bit bulkier than my phone :rolleyes:. Should I consider my mac Pro as phone? Of course not.
Look. A tablet is not a phone, okay? Nobody is going to carry an iPad in his pants all day.
A tablet is much closer to being a replacement to a laptop than to being a phone.
addicted44
Apr 23, 06:09 PM
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
Because those screens WILL look better to those normal customers. Text and graphics will look sharper, and clearer.
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
Because those screens WILL look better to those normal customers. Text and graphics will look sharper, and clearer.
The iPhone screen, before the retina screen, had a higher resolution than macs. People could not see individual pixels. Despite that, ask any Tom Dick or Harry on the street, and they will be unequivocal that the Retina screen is far better looking than the 3GS screens.
farmboy
Mar 31, 09:00 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Sabertooth.
twoodcc
Aug 3, 07:23 AM
It's not a "chintzy marketing ploy by Intel". It's a scientific test conducted by two Intel Marketing engineers which I always believe because Intel employees are honest people with families and friends who love them. :)
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
mscriv
May 3, 01:44 PM
Awaiting confirmation from mscriv. In the meanwhile, one slot is still open.
Ok, I'm in. Now where did I put those....
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmHh4sTAvx49pmmr5IYddZOPj92x-0Z4zTW1mLDtuWSLoj7s8whTMf9E9n
And just so we're all clear, I'm definitely Chaotic Good. :D
Ok, I'm in. Now where did I put those....
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmHh4sTAvx49pmmr5IYddZOPj92x-0Z4zTW1mLDtuWSLoj7s8whTMf9E9n
And just so we're all clear, I'm definitely Chaotic Good. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment