42streetsdown
May 6, 02:50 AM
The headline is wrong.
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
true intel could manufacture arm procs
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
true intel could manufacture arm procs
mitchec
Sep 11, 03:37 AM
I can't see how Apple can begin an sell movies and not also sell a Media Mac.
It would be like iTMS and no iPods... how well would that work? :rolleyes:
I think your right on the button with this one. iTMS is there to support apple products and as such they are going to want to keep it that way.
If its not an updated ipod the only other product must be some kind of video aiport media device that you can rig up to you TV
It would be like iTMS and no iPods... how well would that work? :rolleyes:
I think your right on the button with this one. iTMS is there to support apple products and as such they are going to want to keep it that way.
If its not an updated ipod the only other product must be some kind of video aiport media device that you can rig up to you TV
Popeye206
Apr 18, 03:12 PM
I love the negative comments... you don't even know the details of the lawsuit and what IP Apple is trying to protect. You do know, that is the whole point of patenting things is so you can protect it.
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
dccorona
Apr 5, 01:14 PM
Leave the jailbreak community alone Apple!! What is your ****ing problem??? Can't we just coexist???:mad:
compared to sony, apple is damn near supporting the jailbreak community
compared to sony, apple is damn near supporting the jailbreak community
ergle2
Sep 15, 11:08 PM
Thank You For This Excellent Analysis Of Santa Rosa And What It Will And Won't Be ergle2. Best I've read anywhere here so far.
Thanks -- Glad you liked it :)
Thanks -- Glad you liked it :)
phantom5251
Dec 6, 03:23 PM
Apple has changed their site now to say it would ship in 1-2 months.
bigandy
Jul 29, 08:46 PM
i'm betting it will be introduced by apple's special flying pig. :rolleyes:
alcaponek
Apr 21, 03:11 PM
sry for OT but whats the deal with those up and down ranks? and where are they now :)
j26
Jul 30, 06:55 AM
I hope it will be a GSM phone. If the AppleBerry rumors are true, then that would be sweet, too.
If it's not GSM it will be a massive failure. Focusing on a relatively small under developed market (the US) would be silly when a vibrannt global market is out there. Europe, Japan, and most importantly China (proobably the biggest growing market for phones) all work on GSM.
If it's not GSM it will be a massive failure. Focusing on a relatively small under developed market (the US) would be silly when a vibrannt global market is out there. Europe, Japan, and most importantly China (proobably the biggest growing market for phones) all work on GSM.
Stridder44
Aug 2, 12:18 PM
God I can't wait to see the new Finder/OS X developments........and MBP updates!!!!
Molnies
Sep 15, 04:36 PM
I sure hope we will see Aperture 2.0 and not just 1.2...
~Shard~
Aug 11, 12:31 PM
I think he means it's a speed bump in terms of sales. Not technically. Though I may have him/her wrong.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I could see that being the case now that you mention it.
Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Quite true. Again, I was speaking from a technical perspective, but practically, yes, this is quite true.
Umm..technically you are right, but the the difference of 5-15% is not very significant, especially compared to Conroe's 40% jump. Merom's power is limited by slower FSB which is not going to see any change anytime soon. I just hope they fix current MBP issues first like battery life, underclocked graphic card and Superdrives. CPU upgrade is just a ritual Apple has to perform to stay in the league.
Gotcha, and agreed - see above. ;) :D
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I could see that being the case now that you mention it.
Most of the "goodness" isn't anything a laptop user will notice.
Quite true. Again, I was speaking from a technical perspective, but practically, yes, this is quite true.
Umm..technically you are right, but the the difference of 5-15% is not very significant, especially compared to Conroe's 40% jump. Merom's power is limited by slower FSB which is not going to see any change anytime soon. I just hope they fix current MBP issues first like battery life, underclocked graphic card and Superdrives. CPU upgrade is just a ritual Apple has to perform to stay in the league.
Gotcha, and agreed - see above. ;) :D
itcheroni
Apr 15, 01:57 AM
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
Sorry to break it to you but it's not me with the false premise. Money is like water, it flows to where there is least resistance. Money can be invested in anything and anywhere around the world. You can invest on Asian exchanges. Why not create a company in Hong Kong and invest through that? You can even invest in American companies because many of them list on several international exchanges. If you were a billionaire, would you invest with an individual account in the U.S. and be subject to a 35% tax, or invest through a corporation in Hong Kong and pay no taxes. In reality, they probably have many investments spread out. Some in the U.S., some internationally. Such a change in tax rules will simply cause them to make the appropriate changes to maximize how much they make.
The real problem is a lack of growth. There's only so much Silicon Valley can offer in location. If we really start taxing at 35% and eliminated a lot of deductions, then what reason is there to start a business in the U.S. over Shanghai or Hong Kong?
It's a sad state but we are already testing the waters for capital controls, trying to keep money in the U.S. It's a big mistake we're progressing towards. No one will want to put money into a country that makes it hard to take money out.
ericinboston
Apr 18, 04:19 PM
Samsung will simply pay a hefty amount to Apple and we will never hear anything about this again.
Exactly. And how different has/is Windows 9x/XP been from Mac OS (and vice versa) over the past 15 years? What about tvs? Receivers?
Come on...the iPhone look/feel has been out for quite awhile anyway...it's not like the competitors released products 6 months after the iPhone.
Regardless of how many examples we can list here, this lawsuit ridiculous...a lot of things/products in life are going to look/feel very similar...especially in computers.
Exactly. And how different has/is Windows 9x/XP been from Mac OS (and vice versa) over the past 15 years? What about tvs? Receivers?
Come on...the iPhone look/feel has been out for quite awhile anyway...it's not like the competitors released products 6 months after the iPhone.
Regardless of how many examples we can list here, this lawsuit ridiculous...a lot of things/products in life are going to look/feel very similar...especially in computers.
timbloom
Apr 22, 12:24 PM
Go back and read my post please...thoroughly.
I am referring to the wider market. Sure, you manage 600+ Mac workstations. But on the grand scale of things, thats not worth anything to Apple.
Put it this way:
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers. See my point? The server market for Apple is clearly not worth it. Yes, it sucks big time for people like yourself who rely on it, but at the end of the day Apple will focus on products that bring in cash, not products that break even at best.
Have you ever heard the phrase "all your eggs in one basket"? Diversification at Apple is very needed at the moment. Half of their profit comes from the sale of one device. Say that the iPhone 6 was a flop, imagine having to tell your investors you're losing 50% projected profit nearly overnight. Something like that can crush a company. You want diversification, and apple has the resources currently to really invest in some fairly stable markets such as enterprise. Currently their inroads are IOS in the enterprise, if they can leverage that to sell servers for management it will feed back on itself and support more mutual growth between mac and iOS in these coveted markets. Apple should have struck harder in this area during the vista debacle, but their mac team brushed off the opportunity.
A machine like this with dual purposes is a godsend for us. It means apple only needs production lines for one case, and we get a more flexible server and workstation in one. True hot swap bays on a mac?! F-yeah! I can convince my clients to hook up a rackmount mac pro server in their data center or server closet. LOM is nice, but I don't think it's going to be a make or break deal in most businesses. I don't see why it either couldn't be an optional module with the Server preconfig, or on all of them with the prices apple charges.
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
I am referring to the wider market. Sure, you manage 600+ Mac workstations. But on the grand scale of things, thats not worth anything to Apple.
Put it this way:
Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on redevelopment for an audience of, lets say 50,000 customers when you can spend the same amount on an audience of 1million+ customers. See my point? The server market for Apple is clearly not worth it. Yes, it sucks big time for people like yourself who rely on it, but at the end of the day Apple will focus on products that bring in cash, not products that break even at best.
Have you ever heard the phrase "all your eggs in one basket"? Diversification at Apple is very needed at the moment. Half of their profit comes from the sale of one device. Say that the iPhone 6 was a flop, imagine having to tell your investors you're losing 50% projected profit nearly overnight. Something like that can crush a company. You want diversification, and apple has the resources currently to really invest in some fairly stable markets such as enterprise. Currently their inroads are IOS in the enterprise, if they can leverage that to sell servers for management it will feed back on itself and support more mutual growth between mac and iOS in these coveted markets. Apple should have struck harder in this area during the vista debacle, but their mac team brushed off the opportunity.
A machine like this with dual purposes is a godsend for us. It means apple only needs production lines for one case, and we get a more flexible server and workstation in one. True hot swap bays on a mac?! F-yeah! I can convince my clients to hook up a rackmount mac pro server in their data center or server closet. LOM is nice, but I don't think it's going to be a make or break deal in most businesses. I don't see why it either couldn't be an optional module with the Server preconfig, or on all of them with the prices apple charges.
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
MorphingDragon
May 6, 06:25 AM
"ARM tumbles ahead of Intel 'breakthrough'", May 4 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/8493555/ARM-tumbles-ahead-of-Intel-breakthrough.html)
I'm aware of that, but the last time Intel promised ground breaking CPU technology we ended up with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D series.
I'm aware of that, but the last time Intel promised ground breaking CPU technology we ended up with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D series.
chrfr
May 4, 06:03 PM
I haven't found a way to burn or make it bootable since they don't offer a full dmg file on the developer page like they did with SL.
The .dmg is inside the installer package. It's a simple matter to burn that to disc or restore it to a USB drive and do a clean install.
The .dmg is inside the installer package. It's a simple matter to burn that to disc or restore it to a USB drive and do a clean install.
Tapiwa
Apr 20, 06:56 AM
This model promises to be one that many will pass on.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
LegendKillerUK
Apr 20, 07:44 AM
I'm still on a 3G so I'll be loving whatever they do for the 5. I personally don't want them to touch the externals, it's my favourite looking device.
-aggie-
May 3, 08:49 PM
The problem with all this splitting up is that we become weaker as a split up team. Be careful before you make rash decisions.
Krafty
Apr 5, 02:32 PM
75% of the wallpapers are some asian chick sitting on the hood of some car
Nothing wrong with that on my end.
Nothing wrong with that on my end.
gnasher729
Aug 7, 02:23 PM
Just checked the Intel July price list: Prices per Woodcrest processor are $851, $690 and $316 for one chip running at 3.0, 2.66 or 2.0 GHz, that is $1702, $1380 and $632 for two processors.
Somehow I suspect that Apple pays different prices, because you save $300 if you go down to 2 GHz and you pay $800 extra for 3.0 GHz. Should be the other way round according to the Intel price list. So the 2.66 GHz is a real bargain compared to the others.
If you subtract the processors from the price, then you pay $1597, $1119 and $1567 for the three models.
Somehow I suspect that Apple pays different prices, because you save $300 if you go down to 2 GHz and you pay $800 extra for 3.0 GHz. Should be the other way round according to the Intel price list. So the 2.66 GHz is a real bargain compared to the others.
If you subtract the processors from the price, then you pay $1597, $1119 and $1567 for the three models.
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 02:47 PM
For those of you hoping for a mid-range tower, you're looking at it. Take the processor down from dual 2.66Ghz to dual 2.0 and the HD down from 250GB to 160, and you're looking at a $2124 machine.
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
So if I want a mid-range tower, I can configured it to have less RAM, a smaller HD and a completely useless graphics card, and still come in $200-300 more than a comparable machine from Dell/Gateway/etc.? Why can't Apple sell me a desktop with 2GB RAM stock and a 250GB HD for less than two grand?
Yes, the Apple is a quad instead of a dual - but exactly which apps does that matter on? Is a quad really going to be a vast improvement for Photoshop through Rosetta over, say, a single Xeon or 2.4 Conroe?
All I ask for is a moderately priced OS X desktop that isn't crippled in any way (still paying for 802.11g! $350 to get a usable graphics card!).
If using Windows didn't make my eyes bleed, I'd turn and run from Apple hardware in a heartbeat. (And that, of course, is why fanboy dreams of a retail OS X package for any computer would never happen - you'd have to be a fool to use Apple hardware.)
jonharris200
Jul 21, 02:28 PM
At this rate, I'll never buy another Mac for fear it'll be out of date tomorrow! :eek: