MacPhilosopher
Sep 14, 12:08 PM
Toyota fixes all vehicles because they all have the potential to have dangerous problems.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Not to mention, there have been three or fewer known stuck accelerators in Toyotas out of millions of cars. I cannot imagine that there are at least that many for every manufacturer. This was a media fail for both Apple and Toyota, not a product fail.
Most iPhone owners have no problem whatsoever, and there's no danger at all to anyone.
So Toyota HAS to fix them all. It would be pointless for Apple to fix all iPhones in the field when most of them never have an issue needing a fix. But if you do have a problem, let them know and they will fix it for you for free. That's hardly a burden for such a non-dangerous situation.
We live in this ridiculous era of expectations. Apple comes out with a reasonable solution to a problem that affects a tiny percentage of users, and they get slammed for it. Hypocrisy.
Not to mention, there have been three or fewer known stuck accelerators in Toyotas out of millions of cars. I cannot imagine that there are at least that many for every manufacturer. This was a media fail for both Apple and Toyota, not a product fail.
Kadman
Mar 25, 09:04 PM
This is interesting and it'll be fun to geek around with it. However, games of this type (and most traditional console game styles for that matter) just aren't conducive to tablet control types, regardless if it's touch or motion controlled. The precision is just lacking for any serious gaming. However, casual game play shouldn't prove to be too frustrating control-wise. In this specific situation I'd be willing to go out on a limb and state that more people will buy it for the eye candy or showing off what the platform can do vs those who actually put serious play time into it. Just my thoughts.
Still looks great and I've found my new iPad 2 demo (once it's updated) ;)
Still looks great and I've found my new iPad 2 demo (once it's updated) ;)
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 03:50 PM
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
seenew
Sep 1, 01:47 PM
:( I almost hope it's not true. I just bought my 20" iMac in June.. I know they get replaced quickly, but man!
:(
:(
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:04 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)Absolutely Quad Girl. You are right on the money. Plus DUAL DVI support so you can span to a 30" display.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)Absolutely Quad Girl. You are right on the money. Plus DUAL DVI support so you can span to a 30" display.
islanders
Dec 29, 08:35 AM
It might also have the capacity to use a TV as a monitor through wireless airport. If there is a video processor, word processing text will also be crisp and clean. I could get a mac mini and iTV and use my new 42�� plasma as the monitor. :p
quagmire
Feb 22, 09:35 PM
The vexing part of that is that the cost is largely artificial - i.e. taxes. Popular pickups like the Ford F-250 have been available in a diesel for years, and because they are trucks they are allowed to use diesel engines that are far more polluting and sooty than they need to be, and are tuned for torque rather than economy - meanwhile Volkswagen has to jump through flaming hoops in order to certify a diesel in its passenger cars, meeting stringent emmissions standards. And yet how many huge displacement V6/V8 diesel trucks are sold in the US each year vs diesel VWs? It's all about arbitrary regulatory nonsense.
That has changed. The Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax now have to meet the stringent emissions regulations. Why do you think they cost $8K now compared to the $3-4K before the new emission laws?
That has changed. The Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax now have to meet the stringent emissions regulations. Why do you think they cost $8K now compared to the $3-4K before the new emission laws?
turbineseaplane
Jun 22, 02:55 PM
My goodness...
I'm just hoping Apple continues to make a few machines that can do actual design and coding work.
A touchscreen iPad, iPhone or touchscreen "anything" really doesn't work for that.
Some of us love Apple gear but actually want to get some efficient and creative work done.
Note to Apple: Not every device has to be a whiz-bang, wow 'em at Best Buy, touchscreen device with more reflection than a mirror and finger smudges all over it.
Speaking of which...The Mac Pro ever getting updated again Apple?
I'm just hoping Apple continues to make a few machines that can do actual design and coding work.
A touchscreen iPad, iPhone or touchscreen "anything" really doesn't work for that.
Some of us love Apple gear but actually want to get some efficient and creative work done.
Note to Apple: Not every device has to be a whiz-bang, wow 'em at Best Buy, touchscreen device with more reflection than a mirror and finger smudges all over it.
Speaking of which...The Mac Pro ever getting updated again Apple?
4God
Sep 1, 12:17 PM
I dunno, I think Apple would include support for a dual link dvi with upgraded graphics card so you could attach a 30" Apple Cinema display. I think this would happen before introducing a 23" iMac IMHO.
rasmasyean
Apr 8, 03:43 AM
Well, they don't necessarily need to field troops that shoot rifles. Having a ground force can mean a lot of different things, including spec ops. I think one feasible solution may be to have US troops field artillery. This might be one of those opportunites to test "smart artillery" on those trenches near civilians and hospitals. They might also try to blow up more tanks so they can sell them more refurbished M1 Abrams later. I think smart artillery is more economical than aerial bombing runs to blow up some cheap russian tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
1000masks
Jan 12, 03:02 AM
Im hoping for something out the box from Apple this year. Hopefully something with the touch input and lightweight. Even though I just performed surgery on my 12in Powerbook and replaced the hard drive it would be nice for something new. I dont think it will be called anything "Air" but who knows.
.jpg "Sexy Bra Wallpapers")
lyzardking
Dec 22, 02:01 PM
Are they having problems finishing on time or do they quit before they get all the way finished?
I had two of them (on two different machines) just stop, all eight cores using 0% CPU.
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
I had two of them (on two different machines) just stop, all eight cores using 0% CPU.
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
theBigD23
May 2, 07:01 PM
I feel the same way. I just want to delete an app that delete all of the junk that comes with it. Just moving it to e trash does not do that. Some programs have an uninstall and some don't. That's more confusing for people.
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
wizard
Jun 22, 03:53 PM
Exactly. When did the keyboard and mouse become public enemy number 1? These technologies have been perfected over years and years of real use.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Not in every case but certainly in most cases a Touch screen on the desktop, supporting most productivity apps, is a TERRIBLE idea. I work in a plant full of touch screens supporting various systems and frankly they all suck for general run of the mill interaction or data entry. There is nothing about Apples GUI that can improve this as it is more of a physical ergonomic issue.
However that doesn't mean that touch screen are never useful on the desktop. On the contrary there are apps that can effectively leverage a touch screen. The problem is these are not the apps that most people will be making use of.
In the end I believe you are right about people getting suckered into something they might not ever use. Further I'm more surprised that this rumor is desktop related as a touch screen might actually get used more on a laptop. In the end I just hope this is a bogus rumor.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Not in every case but certainly in most cases a Touch screen on the desktop, supporting most productivity apps, is a TERRIBLE idea. I work in a plant full of touch screens supporting various systems and frankly they all suck for general run of the mill interaction or data entry. There is nothing about Apples GUI that can improve this as it is more of a physical ergonomic issue.
However that doesn't mean that touch screen are never useful on the desktop. On the contrary there are apps that can effectively leverage a touch screen. The problem is these are not the apps that most people will be making use of.
In the end I believe you are right about people getting suckered into something they might not ever use. Further I'm more surprised that this rumor is desktop related as a touch screen might actually get used more on a laptop. In the end I just hope this is a bogus rumor.
balamw
Sep 7, 02:24 PM
Sorry for the nastly long URL (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9OrBsXYjfxgJ:www.amazon.com/b/%3Fie%3DUTF8%26node%3D16263011+unbox+site:amazon.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a), but this is a cache page from a google search where you can see what Amazons offerings are for their new download service.
Pretty broad selection. Including some TV Shows similarly priced to iTMS.
B
Pretty broad selection. Including some TV Shows similarly priced to iTMS.
B
AlphaDogg
Feb 19, 08:47 PM
crapy iphone pics
Beautiful view!
Beautiful view!
Multimedia
Sep 6, 10:32 AM
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.No problem. Just add an EyeTV hybrid (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) for $150 to one ofthe 4 USB ports and you are good to go. Hang a FW400 external 400GB HD for about $150 total - case and HD - and you have your TV server. Why would Apple do it when Elgato already has the perfect ultimate solution? :confused:
Eidorian
Aug 25, 12:09 PM
CPU temp is a result of how efficient the heat dissipation is relative to the heat generated by the CPU... so without knowing how the heat dissipation capabilities varied between the two systems you cannot make much of a judgement on the CPU itself.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
The first generation iMac G5 had worse heat dissipating capabilities then later revisions of the iMac G5.Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
alec
Jul 18, 10:33 AM
I think everyone has touched on an important issue with this: it is not a good that is going to be embraced by the public, at least anytime soon. Who really wants to rent a movie for a few dollars so they can watch it on their iPod (and can iPods even last through a whole movie??). Anyway, I'm not impressed and this smells of a 'too soon' move.
Intell
Apr 9, 04:39 PM
"rare"? In what part of the world are they "rare"?
Yes, I can drive them. Both American and European.
Yes, I can drive them. Both American and European.
ghostshadow
Oct 27, 11:37 PM
Speck just released a bunch of cases last month. Roughly 3 weeks ago. So they are pretty new.
7on
Feb 21, 01:51 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5322249630_f13fec39df_z.jpg
WHAT is that orange contraption? MUST acquire!
WHAT is that orange contraption? MUST acquire!
crap freakboy
Jul 18, 04:03 AM
Until they at least come close to matching the model that Mac The Ripper, Toast and Blockbuster 3 dvd postal rental gives me, I'll have to decline the Studios kind offer regarding rental rather than ownership.;)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:25 PM
I think you are missing the point:
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
Therefore, it cannot be trademarked
It was.
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
Therefore, it cannot be trademarked
It was.
