7thMac
Mar 22, 04:42 PM
I love the Classic. Everything doesn't need to run iOS. But there is room for improvement and when something better comes along I'll buy it. For now there doesn't seem to be any competition.
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:32 PM
Has apple done this before? I'm not trying to make it sound like i'm rude, I really just dont know. I know that when the first MBP's came out they did that silent upgrade in power but I didnt think it was price.
When they had 17" Lampshade G4 iMacs, the price came down one day without notice. I think they also dropped the price $100 on G5 iMac when they upped specs adding Airport (and maybe BT) standard. That was when they went $1,799 to $1,699.
When they had 17" Lampshade G4 iMacs, the price came down one day without notice. I think they also dropped the price $100 on G5 iMac when they upped specs adding Airport (and maybe BT) standard. That was when they went $1,799 to $1,699.
moondog190
Feb 24, 02:19 PM
I was able to get the link working but the picture won't show on the forums for some reason
CplBadboy
Apr 19, 01:16 PM
Hoooraaaayyyyyy!!!
The news Ive been waiting for and not a blinking boring update to the iPhone being white. Maxed out iMac here we come. Its been long time coming. Happy Chappy:D
The news Ive been waiting for and not a blinking boring update to the iPhone being white. Maxed out iMac here we come. Its been long time coming. Happy Chappy:D
63dot
Jan 6, 10:13 AM
If properly maintained, mileage holds no bounds! BMW's will go to 250k easy.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
RichardBeer
Mar 24, 01:09 PM
I would love to see more cards supported off the shelf offering a wider choice of upgrade and gpu options. Although I'd be then concerned with the effect it may have on the integrated optimized nature of OS X and the hardware.
Would be nice to Nvidia being supported as well. If for some reason you wish to run Linux on your mac and you have an ATI card you are at a disadvantage as ATI make crap linux drivers.
Would be nice to Nvidia being supported as well. If for some reason you wish to run Linux on your mac and you have an ATI card you are at a disadvantage as ATI make crap linux drivers.
Detlev
Jul 18, 08:30 PM
Only way this works is if Apple makes the movie available for download/rental a week or two before DVD release (or earlier, like hotel PPV).
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
knightlie
Jun 23, 03:21 AM
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
Not necessarily. iOS apps need to be touched directly, without a pointer acting as intermediary, whereas a touch/track pad is used to control a pointer on the screen.
Touch screen and touch pad do not have to perform the same function. To enable iOS apps, the Magic Touchpad would need a screen on it, which would turn it into... an iPad.
Not necessarily. iOS apps need to be touched directly, without a pointer acting as intermediary, whereas a touch/track pad is used to control a pointer on the screen.
Touch screen and touch pad do not have to perform the same function. To enable iOS apps, the Magic Touchpad would need a screen on it, which would turn it into... an iPad.
Sbrocket
Jan 11, 04:55 PM
Interesting name, corroborates with the poster that came out earlier.
It also, obviously, fits with what's sure to be a very light product. Get it? Something in the air? Hah, I bet we can all tell who was the brainchild behind this...
It also, obviously, fits with what's sure to be a very light product. Get it? Something in the air? Hah, I bet we can all tell who was the brainchild behind this...
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:31 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:49 PM
If we one day figure out how to do fusion, and make electric cars work or something, we wouldn't give a crap about which leader kills eachother there.
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
reel2reel
Apr 12, 09:22 PM
"Rebuilt from ground up"
:D
Wow that makes me happy. No more KG Core plugin errors???
:D
Wow that makes me happy. No more KG Core plugin errors???
lordonuthin
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
Actually I'm using a Mac Pro with a 8-core 2,26GHz setup.
I'm right at 28 minutes with a MacPro 2.66 octo but I'm not currently running bigadv units because I keep having to shut down to swap hard drives, bigadv units don't restart once you have stopped them. One of these days I'll get some time to consolidate all of my files... then I won't have to shut down so frequently:p
I'm right at 28 minutes with a MacPro 2.66 octo but I'm not currently running bigadv units because I keep having to shut down to swap hard drives, bigadv units don't restart once you have stopped them. One of these days I'll get some time to consolidate all of my files... then I won't have to shut down so frequently:p
gkarris
Mar 21, 02:05 PM
What country hasn't been used as "target practice" (from the US or any other for that matter...)? :eek:
:D
:D
ChrisA
Sep 1, 03:09 PM
Going to 23 inches will make the imac even more UNatractive to many people. Now in a few years when you need to upgrade insted of throwing away an expensive 20" LCD screen yu will be throwing away a VERY expensive LCD screen.
What I want is a little box like the Mini but larger that has the iMac parts inside. A full sized disk, 64-bit memron, lots of RAM slots and a good GPU.
What I want is a little box like the Mini but larger that has the iMac parts inside. A full sized disk, 64-bit memron, lots of RAM slots and a good GPU.
baddj
Apr 2, 07:32 PM
Love this ad makes me want to buy one. only if there was stock on Australia.
regandarcy
Apr 19, 11:22 AM
13" maybe, but the 11" doesn't look to be refreshed for a while. AFAIK Intel has as yet not announced a new CPU that is as low power as the Core2Duo in the 11" MBA.
Along with a new iMac, I'd love to get a new MacBook air too. As much as I LOVE my iPad as the BEST way to surf the web...it's not as versatile a tool when on the road as I had hoped. Even tho the iPad 2 has iMovie now, you can only edit movies shot on apple iOS devices with it. Imovie on the ipad won't let you import And edit HD movies directly from your camera...which sucks.
Anyway...if the new MacBook airs get sandy bridge, thunderbolt and BIGGER flash drives I will pick one up in a...um....FLASH! Seriously. I love the fact that Apple is phasing out the CD/DVD drives. Don't need em, don't want em. BUT the biggest thing stopping me from getting a MacBook air has been the HD size. Even the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
Lastly, come on Apple...4gigs of ram should be standard. :-) heh heh heh.
Along with a new iMac, I'd love to get a new MacBook air too. As much as I LOVE my iPad as the BEST way to surf the web...it's not as versatile a tool when on the road as I had hoped. Even tho the iPad 2 has iMovie now, you can only edit movies shot on apple iOS devices with it. Imovie on the ipad won't let you import And edit HD movies directly from your camera...which sucks.
Anyway...if the new MacBook airs get sandy bridge, thunderbolt and BIGGER flash drives I will pick one up in a...um....FLASH! Seriously. I love the fact that Apple is phasing out the CD/DVD drives. Don't need em, don't want em. BUT the biggest thing stopping me from getting a MacBook air has been the HD size. Even the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
Lastly, come on Apple...4gigs of ram should be standard. :-) heh heh heh.
MacRumors
Sep 6, 08:40 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple has updated the Mac Mini to include all Core Duo models. Other than the processor upgrade, there does not appear to be any differences between the previous Mac Mini and today's release. The Mac Mini is available in two offerings:
1.66 GHz Mac Mini
60 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
1.83 GHz Mac Mini
80 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Superdrive
Both models feature:
-2MB Shared L2 Cache
-512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM standard (up to 2 GB supported)
-GMA 950 Integrated graphics
-1 Firewire 400, 4 USB 2.0
-Optical Digital/Analog Audio In/Out
-Gigabit ethernet
-Airport Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR standard
Of note, the Mac Mini still uses Core Duo (Yonah), not the more advanced Core 2 Duo "Merom" chip found in today's iMac announcements (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml).
Apple has updated the Mac Mini to include all Core Duo models. Other than the processor upgrade, there does not appear to be any differences between the previous Mac Mini and today's release. The Mac Mini is available in two offerings:
1.66 GHz Mac Mini
60 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive
1.83 GHz Mac Mini
80 GB 5400-rpm SATA Hard Drive
Superdrive
Both models feature:
-2MB Shared L2 Cache
-512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM standard (up to 2 GB supported)
-GMA 950 Integrated graphics
-1 Firewire 400, 4 USB 2.0
-Optical Digital/Analog Audio In/Out
-Gigabit ethernet
-Airport Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR standard
Of note, the Mac Mini still uses Core Duo (Yonah), not the more advanced Core 2 Duo "Merom" chip found in today's iMac announcements (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml).
SchneiderMan
Nov 27, 02:20 PM
I like this. I really wish it didn't have the logo, though. Much classier as just a photograph, IMHO.
Yeah I wish I could Photoshop it LOL.
Yeah I wish I could Photoshop it LOL.
Postal
Jan 12, 12:07 PM
are you kidding me?
Macbook Air?
WORST NAME EVER
There's no way Apple would ever call something that.
You've pretty much guaranteed that MacBook air is the name.
Any time someone says "there's no way Apple would ever call it <insert widely rumored name here>," Apple promptly named it as such.
It goes by a variant on the same rule which guarantees anything suggested by MOSR will never come true.
Macbook Air?
WORST NAME EVER
There's no way Apple would ever call something that.
You've pretty much guaranteed that MacBook air is the name.
Any time someone says "there's no way Apple would ever call it <insert widely rumored name here>," Apple promptly named it as such.
It goes by a variant on the same rule which guarantees anything suggested by MOSR will never come true.
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.
roach
Nov 30, 03:06 AM
Well, then you don't understand Apple's magic. That's precisely where
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
shawnce
Jul 19, 08:17 PM
Vista sucks, there is very little incentive for people to upgrade.
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
brenden
Feb 24, 05:46 PM
my setup
