powerbook911
Sep 12, 04:11 PM
I have the 60 GB 5G. There is no benefit for me to get a 80 GB new one except the extra capacity, correct?
I mean, I did software update, and it seems great.
They mention battery life, but music is still 20 hours rated, so I think they only list more battery life because they have the "BRIGHTNESS" setting now! ha-ha. So I think my battery is just as good too?
I mean, I did software update, and it seems great.
They mention battery life, but music is still 20 hours rated, so I think they only list more battery life because they have the "BRIGHTNESS" setting now! ha-ha. So I think my battery is just as good too?
babyj
Oct 12, 10:01 PM
I really can't believe some of the posts that have been made here.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Forget about the donation that will be made for every sale. Far more important is the number of people that will be educated on life in third world countries as a result of the promotion. We could do with a lot more companies running similar initiatives.
Its a bit sad that people are more interested in a new nano, or a core duo 2 macbook than they are in all the people that die every second of every day. Deaths that the western world could do something about but chooses not to. I for one am ashamed that we do so little to help so many people that suffer so much.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Forget about the donation that will be made for every sale. Far more important is the number of people that will be educated on life in third world countries as a result of the promotion. We could do with a lot more companies running similar initiatives.
Its a bit sad that people are more interested in a new nano, or a core duo 2 macbook than they are in all the people that die every second of every day. Deaths that the western world could do something about but chooses not to. I for one am ashamed that we do so little to help so many people that suffer so much.
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 09:28 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
steviem
Apr 25, 09:37 AM
Instead of increasing the driving age, what about requiring more logged hours with a parent whit a learner's permit, manditory quality driver's ed, and making it harder for unsafe drivers to get their licence? Then require a one year driving check up a year after the licence was attained?
To be honest, it looks like the stupidity is hereditary. He has hereditary idiot disease and the only thing to teach him is either getting himself in a nasty car wreck or getting beat up or rammed off the road after cutting someone off.
To be honest, it looks like the stupidity is hereditary. He has hereditary idiot disease and the only thing to teach him is either getting himself in a nasty car wreck or getting beat up or rammed off the road after cutting someone off.
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 10:29 AM
I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:27 AM
Looking at that image now, I can't believe Samsung missed the opportunity to slap the silhouette of a half-eaten pear on the back. LOL
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
Eidorian
Jul 19, 07:38 PM
Allendale is not faster than Merom. Benchmarks show it is slower.Links please. Both low end Merom and Allendale have the same amount of cache. Still, Allendale clocks higher and faster.
jholzner
Sep 16, 02:03 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
scoobydoo99
Mar 29, 01:08 PM
why is it that the media constantly confuse PHONES with OPERATING SYSTEMS. the headline screams "Windows phone to top iPhone".....
THEN the chart shows they are comparing OPERATING SYSTEMS. It's important to remember that Apple's phenomenal market share is accomplished on ONE handset (yes it gets updated every year, but there's only ONE iPhone) compared to dozens and dozens that run Android and (maybe someday) Windows Phone 7.
I still doubt it, but regardless, no SINGLE PHONE will come anywhere near the iPhone.
THEN the chart shows they are comparing OPERATING SYSTEMS. It's important to remember that Apple's phenomenal market share is accomplished on ONE handset (yes it gets updated every year, but there's only ONE iPhone) compared to dozens and dozens that run Android and (maybe someday) Windows Phone 7.
I still doubt it, but regardless, no SINGLE PHONE will come anywhere near the iPhone.
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:24 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Nomadski
Apr 13, 07:07 AM
MagnusVonMagnum -
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
Unless you've purchased / converted music in Apple lossless format it IS way better quality. Im making the comparison of my situation listening to FLAC vs the masses who purchase mp3s on iTunes. You could rip your music in Apple Lossless for sure, but then your hooked into iTunes, cant play on WMP or most other mp3s other than iPods. Like with a lot of stuff iTunes related, if you go that route, your stuck. Even the all inclusive Sonos S5 sounds better than the best iPod dock on the market (Bose 10 / Zeppelin whichever grabs your boat the most).
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
Sonos isnt cheap for sure, but that is why I said people who have no shortage of money at the start of my thread. Some people have massive Mac systems, those people shouldn't skimp when it comes to music, if they like music, or video for that matter.
One of the big features of Sonos which you obviously arent aware of is that Sonos DOESNT hog your bandwidth. It uses its own Mesh network which works independantly of your home wireless network, hence no bandwidth constraints, which is why you can have up to 32 Sonos units all working AT THE SAME TIME on the same or different sources whilst not affecting the bandwidth capability of your home network. Try using even 2 AppleTV2s at the same time and see how much of your bandwidth is left.
Also, if you live in a large house, or one with thick walls, or you want to listen outside, because Sonos recreates its own Mesh network each time it hits a Sonos unit strength signal on the opposite side of the house to the router is still very high, each Zone Player acts like a new Sonos signal source.
Yup its expensive but I bought my first Sonos bit of kit in 2006. Since then ive added 3 more units, 2 of which were new redesigned units released a couple of years ago. Ive also added a second controller when they moved to touchscreen 2 years ago. And you know what? It all works seamlessly with each other. Old hardware, new hardware, built up over time. New features added over time (for free) seamlessly updated into even the oldest bit of hardware with a firmware update, they even added full Touch, iPhone and iPad control options so I could use any of them to control the audio around the house. Can you integrate AppleTV2 with 1? Can you honestly say in 5 years time your money spent will still work with the rest of your AppleTV system as they upgrade and add new features? When 3 year old sounddocks wont even charge new ipods I would hazard a guess...no.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
NAS or WHS arent cheap but youve just contradicted yourself.
Sonos will also play from any networked PC, MAC, External hard drive on Airport, netbook. To use a NAS you dont have to install XBMC on it, it works out of the box from any source you want. That PPC G4 would also work with Sonos, or you could play Last.FM, or Pandora, or Spotify, or Napster, or unlimited internet radio (you can even add your own internet radio addresses).
Best of all, you DONT have to use iTunes. You can if you want, but you dont have to.
Sonos also gives you multi room grouping. Group 2 or more zones together and enjoy synced music wherever you want it. Not miliseconds out syncing like Sony or Logitech but 100% synced. Dropping zones can be done at the flick of the controller.
Read a review of a new album in the newspaper? Listen to it 5 seconds later on Sonos.
So the kids can listen to their own music streamed in their rooms upstairs, my wife can be listening to the TV, or some music in the living room, and I can be in my little den listening to my music whilst enjoying near full speed wireless capability on my pc or mac, or maybe my wife likes a song shes hearing upstairs and links zones so she can hear it downstairs.
You can buy a standalone unit which sounds better than the B&W Zeppelin, or get the amped unit for attaching to any speaker system you want, or get the small unit for use (as you do) with your existing stereo system. You can add these anytime you want, building up your Sonos system over time, without the fear it will be redundant over time.
Its a high end multi room music system vs a limited single streaming unit.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
Cost seems to be the big issue with you, so I wonder if you own a mac mini as opposed to 3 macbook pros, an imac, apple tv2 etc etc as many posters here have? If so, Sonos etc wont be for you. If you do own multiple Apple systems why are you so concerned with price? If you want the best you got to pay for it.
With Apple TV you DONT have all your movies or music or internet radio. you have limited experiences with all 3. No 1080p, no DVD images (Popcorn will load your dvd image in exactly the same way your dvd player would), wont play .mp4 .m4v .mkv .wmv .avi .aac .divx, doesnt have full support for all subtitle formats, wont play FLAC or anything else outside of your iTunes library audio wise and its internet radio function is gimped.
Its sure nice to have it in one box, but *it* is very very limited. Dedicated systems will always trump jack of all trade systems.
The interface is nice on AppleTV2 for sure, my popcorn looks better though with my skin on it. The default layout looks boring ill agree.
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare
Except you couldnt do that could you? Your wireless network would be crippled with half that many running at the same time. I can assure you I can play a 1080P movie AND have 3 other Sonos units streaming at the same time. Try that sometime with 4 AppleTVs...
With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour).
No, no it cant. DVD isos? All subtitle formats? 1080P? Also your slightly expanded feature set (not out of the box) is achieved by essentially hacking your AppleTV 2, so good luck on the next firmware update.
Hell, I can even buy a cheap 3.5" internal hard drive and slot that into my popcorn hour if I want to store the films locally, what sized hard drive does Apple TV2 have? Oh wait.
Your not seeing the advantages with zero configuration audio system, and a play all with no hassles video system? The only mucking about in my system is if you want a nice shinier interface with Popcorn Hour. You have to convert audio, replace (essentially) the OS to XBMC, have a linux system and a Crystal card to play 1080p on an OLDER Apple TV (your not factoring in this stuff with your price or integrated system arguments are you?) and you STILL have a far more limited setup.
Reading thru your post I guarantee you your costs are higher than $99 and in about 2 years time your system will be redundant.
Im not saying the AppleTV 2 is useless for everyone, for many of the dumb masses who are locked into iTunes already its probably the best thing since sliced bread, and really its only advantage is a cheap price and movie rentals, in glorious 720P, but if I want to feed my 42" 1080p plasma with subpar 720P video I could use the xbox or PS3 sitting under the TV, which I also dont bother with. For audiophiles or moviephiles it doesn't cut it.
Peace
Sep 1, 09:02 AM
I'm starting to question the validity of any keynote.There's only one story about it and it's not even on the radio shows webpage.Why are there not more media types getting "invitations" ?
LaDirection
Mar 29, 02:06 PM
Bookmark this and pull it up in 4 years...
prady16
Sep 5, 07:19 AM
I really wish the media device rumor is true, but i would highly doubt that Apple would bring out the successor to the iPod this early. May be it is a pilot program like the Rockr phone for music on cell phones that Apple wants to experiment with by throwing a media streaming device in the market!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
Also, i really wish the movies are priced at $4.99 rather than $9.99!
dethmaShine
Apr 28, 03:24 PM
Well MS has two games to play on:
1. Tablet/Phone
The tablet/phone is going to be a big deal. If they do well, they are going to generate good profits.
2. Operating System/ Office
Unless and until MS does something new under operating systems, throwing windows 8 is not going to make a big difference. Also, till the time Windows 8 comes out MS's profits are going to decrease.
Kinect is out/ Windows 7 is out - This side is gonna go down.
So till the time Windows 8 is ready MS has to count on the mobile business.
1. Tablet/Phone
The tablet/phone is going to be a big deal. If they do well, they are going to generate good profits.
2. Operating System/ Office
Unless and until MS does something new under operating systems, throwing windows 8 is not going to make a big difference. Also, till the time Windows 8 comes out MS's profits are going to decrease.
Kinect is out/ Windows 7 is out - This side is gonna go down.
So till the time Windows 8 is ready MS has to count on the mobile business.
![game of thrones poster. [Poster] - Game of Thrones](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix7DsocLocnkHXgZjrIiWXKgvEeqJ0JsN5On1SL75zQS2HageQrKwvpct12AyfP9-5-k6U8lYVA1_rxliNKTyp_XDabeNk5Khyphenhyphen6Et3pWRoouXxfYdJ4GTONweFJHR0f2aY__YnNqdvmPM/s1600/Game+of+Thrones+-+0.bmp "[Poster] - Game of Thrones")
Auax
Apr 11, 09:50 PM
In fact, i hope one day i can use it to stream video. possible?
bommai
Sep 19, 04:07 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
cult hero
Mar 22, 03:03 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 06:01 AM
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
How many times do you actually punch in the numbers on your cellphone today? I tend to find more or less all numbers I call from my phone book or push "call back". It is very rare that I use the keypad.
How many times do you actually punch in the numbers on your cellphone today? I tend to find more or less all numbers I call from my phone book or push "call back". It is very rare that I use the keypad.
SilianRail
Apr 14, 04:58 PM
Using the 3.0 drive, the 10-gigabyte folder transferred to the U.S.B. 3.0 drive in 6 minutes, 31 seconds (write speed). The U.S.B. 2.0 drive took 22 minutes, 14 seconds to copy the same 10-gig folder.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
bjdku
Aug 31, 01:38 PM
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
I agree they know better, and who has been feverishly building bandwidth and capability to deliver full length full resolution movies...Google has.
And who just joined the Apple Board, the Google CEO!!!!
Tantalizing!
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
I agree they know better, and who has been feverishly building bandwidth and capability to deliver full length full resolution movies...Google has.
And who just joined the Apple Board, the Google CEO!!!!
Tantalizing!
Susurs
Apr 22, 04:55 PM
They'd have better found a place for Nvidia or AMD GPU via PCI-E not that Thunderbolt...
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 04:55 PM
I remember back in the 2nd half of the 90's, HP came out with the dual Pentium II processor configuration, which only ran on NT. At the time I was administering a new Sparc network and we had a Sun 690MP with 4 ultra-Sparc processors. I thought is was cool that MS PC's had moved to multiple processors.
However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
That's bollocks.
Both processors on Windows NT going back as far as NT3.1 at least will run at full speed, share tasks between them if threaded or just run one task on each.
There was even a hack to have the Explorer (the equivalent of Finder) run multithreaded that sped things up on multi-cpu machines. I've almost always tried to have multi-CPU desktop machines even if that meant a little slower for each CPU. Back in 97-98 my favourite machine was a dual Celeron 366 overclocked to 550Mhz each. Each CPU was about $80. It creamed boxes costing much more but was also really smooth to use since there was also a spare CPU quite often to keep things ticking along whilst CPU1 was tied up.
However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
That's bollocks.
Both processors on Windows NT going back as far as NT3.1 at least will run at full speed, share tasks between them if threaded or just run one task on each.
There was even a hack to have the Explorer (the equivalent of Finder) run multithreaded that sped things up on multi-cpu machines. I've almost always tried to have multi-CPU desktop machines even if that meant a little slower for each CPU. Back in 97-98 my favourite machine was a dual Celeron 366 overclocked to 550Mhz each. Each CPU was about $80. It creamed boxes costing much more but was also really smooth to use since there was also a spare CPU quite often to keep things ticking along whilst CPU1 was tied up.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 10, 09:18 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
0 comments:
Post a Comment