jkmakesmusic
Jan 13, 02:44 AM
Bluetooth headphones?
being a bit of an audiophile, bluetooth headphones being my only option would definitely cause me not to buy this. if only for that one reason. i didn't buy $250 in-ears to sit around while i use the junk apple provides with their ipod, only wirelessly.
and knowing that jobs himself is a bit of an audiophile, he'd never sign off on this.
this thing is going to have ports. even the iphone and ipod touch do. sorry guys.
being a bit of an audiophile, bluetooth headphones being my only option would definitely cause me not to buy this. if only for that one reason. i didn't buy $250 in-ears to sit around while i use the junk apple provides with their ipod, only wirelessly.
and knowing that jobs himself is a bit of an audiophile, he'd never sign off on this.
this thing is going to have ports. even the iphone and ipod touch do. sorry guys.
The.316
Nov 27, 08:41 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
How is Hot Pursuit? Is it open world?
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Ugh, I agree.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
iGav
Mar 9, 02:18 PM
So I don't think they did any modifications to the suspension.
I'd hazard a guess that they probably did� just because of the difference in preference in ride quality, European cars are naturally exceedingly firm� the same cars with sports suspension, excruciatingly so.
The Insignia's not a bad car by any means, the OPC/VXR concept looked particularly mean, especially in wagon form, but the rear of the hatchback looks a little odd to me, fussily unresolved with so many bad lines� but that is probably to be expected given it's World Car origins. It's wheelbase looks far too short as well.
http://www.motorward.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/opel-insignia-opc-sports-tourer-1.jpg
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
I'd suggest that the A2 was the last truly innovative car with regards to packaging, spaceframe, double-floor (like the A Class, but much better implemented) etc.
Something like the Smart is too compromised in achieving it's small footprint, and the IQ is as conventional as they come. As are cars like the Ka/500, i10 etc.
I think VW was on to something with their up! concept, (rear engined, 2 or 3 cylinder engine (I forget which), and a minimalist cabin) but then they decided the layout was too difficult to make work (read as too expensive, can't be bothered) and it's becoming a conventional FE/FWD hatch� when they could have launched the new people's car for the 21st century, with an innovative drivetrain and modular interior functionality, based on something like an iPad type device (which is what VW's new Hackney Cab concept looks to be implementing).
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run,
I can't help but think GM would've been better repositioning Opel. They're making unnecessary (not to mention needlessly expensive) work for themselves with Chevy. It's a bit icy out isn't it? Is that the captain at the bar? ;)
Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
They can't� especially when rival Korean cars are very, very good indeed, if still a little dull.
Damning with faint praise!
What can I say� it's ingrained. :p
In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars,
It's considered more mid-size here if anything. In Holden form, right up until the C-Pillar it's a fine design, but like a lot of cars today, it's got bum trouble.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/2009-2010_Holden_JG_Cruze_CDX_sedan_02.jpg/800px-2009-2010_Holden_JG_Cruze_CDX_sedan_02.jpg
It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
I think that would be my issue, if I were thinking of dropping the �$�� on a new car, I'd be thinking to myself, is a new car so important to me as to stomach the depreciation that drops like an atom-bomb, or do I buy myself a new Golf?
And we never got to see it here.
And is it any wonder that Ford U.S. almost went the way of the muff?
if any car company has shown to have any knowledge about badge engineering/branding it's VW AG
Indeed, this alone would be a thread in itself wouldn't it. :p
believe it or not back in the 70ties Opel actually had a trendy, sporty and young reputation image
That'll be the Manta. :p
Vauxhall have never really had that image. It's no coincidence that in Cockney Rhyming Slang, that Vauxhall rhymes with Dull.
it's not exactly GM alone:
yes VW are really bland looking too, but opposed to many GM vehicles if you take the badge away you would be still able recognize that the vehicle is a VW ...
And you highlight exactly where many/most car manufacturers go wrong when it comes to developing a World Car and why they're seldom truly successful. BMW & Mercedes have been producing World Cars for decades haven't they, some would say successfully so. Why? Because they're completely & unapologetically Germanic.
seriously the new micra is bringing the bland back to the brand ..
True that� it looks older than the car it replaced. :eek:
at least hyundai finally realised that those names they were putting on their models weren't the brightest idea in 95% of all cases
The i10 has gotten rave reviews over here, frequently voted best city-urban-girls car or something� I heard that when a man drives one, his balls shrink and he assumes a pre-pubescent state. ;)
I'd hazard a guess that they probably did� just because of the difference in preference in ride quality, European cars are naturally exceedingly firm� the same cars with sports suspension, excruciatingly so.
The Insignia's not a bad car by any means, the OPC/VXR concept looked particularly mean, especially in wagon form, but the rear of the hatchback looks a little odd to me, fussily unresolved with so many bad lines� but that is probably to be expected given it's World Car origins. It's wheelbase looks far too short as well.
http://www.motorward.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/opel-insignia-opc-sports-tourer-1.jpg
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
I'd suggest that the A2 was the last truly innovative car with regards to packaging, spaceframe, double-floor (like the A Class, but much better implemented) etc.
Something like the Smart is too compromised in achieving it's small footprint, and the IQ is as conventional as they come. As are cars like the Ka/500, i10 etc.
I think VW was on to something with their up! concept, (rear engined, 2 or 3 cylinder engine (I forget which), and a minimalist cabin) but then they decided the layout was too difficult to make work (read as too expensive, can't be bothered) and it's becoming a conventional FE/FWD hatch� when they could have launched the new people's car for the 21st century, with an innovative drivetrain and modular interior functionality, based on something like an iPad type device (which is what VW's new Hackney Cab concept looks to be implementing).
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run,
I can't help but think GM would've been better repositioning Opel. They're making unnecessary (not to mention needlessly expensive) work for themselves with Chevy. It's a bit icy out isn't it? Is that the captain at the bar? ;)
Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
They can't� especially when rival Korean cars are very, very good indeed, if still a little dull.
Damning with faint praise!
What can I say� it's ingrained. :p
In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars,
It's considered more mid-size here if anything. In Holden form, right up until the C-Pillar it's a fine design, but like a lot of cars today, it's got bum trouble.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/2009-2010_Holden_JG_Cruze_CDX_sedan_02.jpg/800px-2009-2010_Holden_JG_Cruze_CDX_sedan_02.jpg
It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
I think that would be my issue, if I were thinking of dropping the �$�� on a new car, I'd be thinking to myself, is a new car so important to me as to stomach the depreciation that drops like an atom-bomb, or do I buy myself a new Golf?
And we never got to see it here.
And is it any wonder that Ford U.S. almost went the way of the muff?
if any car company has shown to have any knowledge about badge engineering/branding it's VW AG
Indeed, this alone would be a thread in itself wouldn't it. :p
believe it or not back in the 70ties Opel actually had a trendy, sporty and young reputation image
That'll be the Manta. :p
Vauxhall have never really had that image. It's no coincidence that in Cockney Rhyming Slang, that Vauxhall rhymes with Dull.
it's not exactly GM alone:
yes VW are really bland looking too, but opposed to many GM vehicles if you take the badge away you would be still able recognize that the vehicle is a VW ...
And you highlight exactly where many/most car manufacturers go wrong when it comes to developing a World Car and why they're seldom truly successful. BMW & Mercedes have been producing World Cars for decades haven't they, some would say successfully so. Why? Because they're completely & unapologetically Germanic.
seriously the new micra is bringing the bland back to the brand ..
True that� it looks older than the car it replaced. :eek:
at least hyundai finally realised that those names they were putting on their models weren't the brightest idea in 95% of all cases
The i10 has gotten rave reviews over here, frequently voted best city-urban-girls car or something� I heard that when a man drives one, his balls shrink and he assumes a pre-pubescent state. ;)
Eidorian
Aug 25, 11:07 AM
1. Apple doesn't pay those prices.
2. No way is Apple going to keep shipping any Yonah processors.
3. Any speed Solo Yonah will be history with this refresh.
4. It's gonna be 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo T5500 and 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo T5600 minis.
5. I expect the iMac to sport faster Conroes in a completely new designed enclosure that can deal with the additional heat a Conroe setup will generate.
6. I also think there's a chance for a 23" iMac 1920 x 1200 all-in-one model. That is, after all, the proper resolution to display native HDTV.
7. iMacs will get:
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) and
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)
They only have TWO Cores. You think Apple isn't going to let iMac owners have half as many cores as the Mac Pro owners at comparable speeds and L2 cache?1. Of course Apple isn't going to pay the per/1000 prices. They're getting better deals then that.
2. After Leopard's "64-bit" announcement I have to agree.
3. Even a "slow" Duo is worth much more then any Solo.
5. Hopefully they'll put Conroe in. The 965 chipset is hard to get. The current enclosure can handle a G5. I don't see the need for a redesign needed for Conroe. At worst it'll need a slight bump in the power supply wattage.
6. Possible, the price on the 20" model is rather low. (For education anyways) Just $1450 for me after selling my free iPod.
2. No way is Apple going to keep shipping any Yonah processors.
3. Any speed Solo Yonah will be history with this refresh.
4. It's gonna be 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo T5500 and 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo T5600 minis.
5. I expect the iMac to sport faster Conroes in a completely new designed enclosure that can deal with the additional heat a Conroe setup will generate.
6. I also think there's a chance for a 23" iMac 1920 x 1200 all-in-one model. That is, after all, the proper resolution to display native HDTV.
7. iMacs will get:
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) and
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)
They only have TWO Cores. You think Apple isn't going to let iMac owners have half as many cores as the Mac Pro owners at comparable speeds and L2 cache?1. Of course Apple isn't going to pay the per/1000 prices. They're getting better deals then that.
2. After Leopard's "64-bit" announcement I have to agree.
3. Even a "slow" Duo is worth much more then any Solo.
5. Hopefully they'll put Conroe in. The 965 chipset is hard to get. The current enclosure can handle a G5. I don't see the need for a redesign needed for Conroe. At worst it'll need a slight bump in the power supply wattage.
6. Possible, the price on the 20" model is rather low. (For education anyways) Just $1450 for me after selling my free iPod.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 05:27 AM
6hrs 33 minutes.
what is it about 3 am in the states. I wonder what steve would be dreaming about
what is it about 3 am in the states. I wonder what steve would be dreaming about
Dont Hurt Me
Mar 19, 03:49 PM
Apples commercials have sucked, very rarely do they show what it can do. I have to laugh i was watching the o'reiley factor the other night and all of a sudden they show the Apple ipod commercial with brothers(if you know what i mean) dancing and listening to hip hop. then i asked myself how many conservative Americans are going even pay attention to that geto commercial let alone buy a pod because of that. talk about waste of air time. Like O'reileys viewers play and listens to Rap. Apple is lost when it comes to marketing and building computers for the masses.
mdatwood
Apr 26, 01:53 PM
This annoys me, no way in hell should another plagerist company be allowed to ride apples high, why should they, c'mon mac users get behind apple on this one.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
Many X windows WMs had widgets back in the mid 90s, maybe earlier. It's so funny to see people think that companies invented this or that and you just have to look back to unix/linux to find the real origins of the idea.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
Many X windows WMs had widgets back in the mid 90s, maybe earlier. It's so funny to see people think that companies invented this or that and you just have to look back to unix/linux to find the real origins of the idea.
Porchland
Aug 16, 08:19 AM
I thought Zune was not (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1961) going to support wireless music downloads? So many rumors.
DMann
Jan 13, 07:29 PM
Come on, people!!
In my opinion, their quote, "There's something in the air," is nothing other than an allusion to the fact that they're going to introduce a 3G iPhone. We have all known that this was coming eventually; Jobs even said that the only thing stopping them from introducing it was low battery life.
Much prefer "Wi-Max in the air" to a power hungry, girth expanding, comparatively slower 3G.
In my opinion, their quote, "There's something in the air," is nothing other than an allusion to the fact that they're going to introduce a 3G iPhone. We have all known that this was coming eventually; Jobs even said that the only thing stopping them from introducing it was low battery life.
Much prefer "Wi-Max in the air" to a power hungry, girth expanding, comparatively slower 3G.
jsm4182
Feb 27, 01:49 AM
The rule is actually very simple as far as the LCD ones go:
LCD <20" = Studio Display (15" and 17")
Any LCD 20" or larger = Cinema Display (Watch the G4 Sawtooth intro on youtube, and you see the very first 22" DVI-D (Pre ADC) Cinema Display which was a BTO option on the 450 and 500Mhz PowerMac G4s in 1999. That was the first gen. The Aluminium ones are about the 4th I believe (22" DVI-D, 22" ADC, 20 and 23" ADC/Acryllic, then the 20" Aluminium ones).
I thought all the plastic ones were called studio displays, didn't realize the bigger ones were called cinema. My mistake.
I used to use them in College, the video lab had MDD PowerMac G4s, each with a 22 and 17.
LCD <20" = Studio Display (15" and 17")
Any LCD 20" or larger = Cinema Display (Watch the G4 Sawtooth intro on youtube, and you see the very first 22" DVI-D (Pre ADC) Cinema Display which was a BTO option on the 450 and 500Mhz PowerMac G4s in 1999. That was the first gen. The Aluminium ones are about the 4th I believe (22" DVI-D, 22" ADC, 20 and 23" ADC/Acryllic, then the 20" Aluminium ones).
I thought all the plastic ones were called studio displays, didn't realize the bigger ones were called cinema. My mistake.
I used to use them in College, the video lab had MDD PowerMac G4s, each with a 22 and 17.
HiRez
Apr 12, 10:05 PM
Wow, looks pretty awesome. Nothing about improved typography though? Booooo.
Fuchal
Jul 18, 06:58 AM
Paying to rent 320x240 videos with stereo sound is a complete waste of money.
toddybody
Apr 19, 07:07 PM
I work with these machines on the daily. Their service manuals are three mouse clicks and the type of my password away. My co-worker has at least two of them bare naked chips and bits exposed and all at his bench on the daily. It's hard not to stare at them as I take my morning walk to the break room to grab a cup of water. I can speak definitively because I know what I'm talking about. As for pompousness, sorry my tone offends you. Perhaps you might try ignoring it?
:) Well said. I only ignore totally worthless posts...yours was too contemplative and detailed to categorize such:o
:) Well said. I only ignore totally worthless posts...yours was too contemplative and detailed to categorize such:o
mdatwood
Apr 26, 01:53 PM
This annoys me, no way in hell should another plagerist company be allowed to ride apples high, why should they, c'mon mac users get behind apple on this one.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
Many X windows WMs had widgets back in the mid 90s, maybe earlier. It's so funny to see people think that companies invented this or that and you just have to look back to unix/linux to find the real origins of the idea.
On mac computers we've always had "Applications", windows have had "programs", when apple made the iPhone they put mini applications on it and called them Apps which is short for small Applications, so amazon call yours PROGS and call it a Progstore but don't STEAL man !remember the widgets on your macs they are where the idea for the Apps on Iphones came from, Windows came along and stole the Widgets idea and initially called them Gadgets but now every other copycat calls them Widgets too, the same is happening again man it's bull, apple sue these leeches all of them.
Many X windows WMs had widgets back in the mid 90s, maybe earlier. It's so funny to see people think that companies invented this or that and you just have to look back to unix/linux to find the real origins of the idea.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 03:33 AM
Gah. The Linux community doesn't want to unify. In fact, not unifying is the core of their philosophy. The vast majority of Linux users (ie, non-n00bs) don't really give a crap about mass adoption of Linux. Many even view such a possibility with horror and disgust. The only priority is choice. It's why there are 415 distributions (none of which are compatible with each other), 9,843 window managers (none of which have remotely similar configuration options), and 3.43x10^15 terminal emulators (none of which actually emulate terminals any better or worse than any other one).
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
Waving the "king of the OS hill" prize in front of a bunch of Linux users/developers will only result in them staring at you like a dog that's been shown a card trick. With very few exceptions, only n00bs (and uncomprehending businessmen who think they can somehow profit) want mass adoption of Linux.
This is a very true statement! With all the different features of the different distributions there will never be a singular Linux out there. People dont want to download the source and compile it, even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect. The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
I hope apple continues the trends they showed this quater, more and more people need to exposed to the mac, and more and more people will switch.
Multimedia
Aug 29, 12:26 PM
Ya, that is off topic. WAY off topic. Why would you post that here? There's already threads started about this. Bah.
Enthusiasm. Haven't seen a thread about this new Bob Dylan Ad yet - only the ones by the fat & skinny guys.yes it is, and you already entioned it another discussion. and there is aready a dedicated discussion about it. so why spam this thread?You think my post is spam? :confused:
I'm sorry. I overlooked the new Dylan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=228809). Please forgive my enthusiasm.
Enthusiasm. Haven't seen a thread about this new Bob Dylan Ad yet - only the ones by the fat & skinny guys.yes it is, and you already entioned it another discussion. and there is aready a dedicated discussion about it. so why spam this thread?You think my post is spam? :confused:
I'm sorry. I overlooked the new Dylan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=228809). Please forgive my enthusiasm.
Irishman
Apr 20, 07:32 AM
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
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.5 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.5 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
~Shard~
Nov 25, 12:38 AM
Certainly not the most expensive mac ever sold. The 40 Mhz II fx was shipping while the II ci sported an MSRP of over $8,000 at 25Mhz. Cheapest the ci sold for even at developer discount at the end of its amazingly long 4+ year run was over $3,300, and those were late 80's dollars.
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
Couldn't agree more. After all, this used to be a bargain as well as the aforementioned machines... :cool:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215//tandypricetp6.png (http://imageshack.us)
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
Couldn't agree more. After all, this used to be a bargain as well as the aforementioned machines... :cool:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215//tandypricetp6.png (http://imageshack.us)
twoodcc
Aug 6, 08:41 PM
wow, that's some bold statements by Apple. i'm sure that they'll back them up though
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:37 PM
Isn't this utterly fantastic? These are the kinds of updates we used to get before Apple went all iPhone and iPad crazy. Glad to see they are finally giving such love to their Pro customers. Although i imagine this has been in the pipeline for a very long time!
Remember when Apple had to delay Leopard in order to finish iOS? They are such a tight ship that they had to shift people from one major OS project to another.
Apple hasn't been neglecting final cut. Many of these technologies have been in development for the past 4 years, and a major software project like this-- a ground up rewrite, remember-- should take about 4 years to produce.
Remember when Apple had to delay Leopard in order to finish iOS? They are such a tight ship that they had to shift people from one major OS project to another.
Apple hasn't been neglecting final cut. Many of these technologies have been in development for the past 4 years, and a major software project like this-- a ground up rewrite, remember-- should take about 4 years to produce.
IbisDoc
Mar 25, 05:50 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
guzhogi
Nov 15, 10:16 AM
Applications should be, and most likely are written to take advantage of available resources. A developer should be writing applications to take advantage of 8-cores already, they don't need an 8-core machine to do so.
I agree. I wonder how idle the graphics card is when not using games. It would really help if more programmers were able to write programs that take advantage of the graphics card and audio card. Too bad SoundBlaster cards are Windows only. I wonder how much faster ripping CDs and converting to different audio formats in iTunes would be if the instructions got offloaded to a Soundblaster or other sound card.
I also heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up video processing and has something like OpenGL, but called OpenRL for video processing.. Would be cool if Aspex & Apple teamed up to make a card for Mac Pros to speed up Final Cut Pro & iMovie. Just my 2 cents.
I agree. I wonder how idle the graphics card is when not using games. It would really help if more programmers were able to write programs that take advantage of the graphics card and audio card. Too bad SoundBlaster cards are Windows only. I wonder how much faster ripping CDs and converting to different audio formats in iTunes would be if the instructions got offloaded to a Soundblaster or other sound card.
I also heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up video processing and has something like OpenGL, but called OpenRL for video processing.. Would be cool if Aspex & Apple teamed up to make a card for Mac Pros to speed up Final Cut Pro & iMovie. Just my 2 cents.
takao
Feb 24, 02:59 PM
A bit off-topic, but why haven't car manufacturers created hybrid cars that use a diesel engine + battery? There are lots of petrol-electric hybrids, but not diesel. :confused:
well i suspect we will see such cars first from a european car company: the japanese are on the front for gasoline powered ones but they simply lack any know how in regard to diesel
just look at their european diesel line up where i suspect 70-80% of all their diesel options are in reality just an engine they bought and slapped their name on the cover
VW is actually working/worked on a diesel range extender hbrid system for their recent small car concept projects, like 'up!" etc.:
it combined light weight materials throughout with an electric engine for normal driving and for highway speeds and extending range a small 2 cylinder 0.8 liter diesel engine optimized to run at constant speeds
quite clever actually .. the overall output combined still was around 70 hp or so which combined with a low weight of the car (800-900kg) still was juicy enough
looking at the very current and very genius Fiat Twin Air engines i have to say that very refined turbocharged small displacement/ few cylinder engines are actually the next step over the overly complicated hybrid systems
well i suspect we will see such cars first from a european car company: the japanese are on the front for gasoline powered ones but they simply lack any know how in regard to diesel
just look at their european diesel line up where i suspect 70-80% of all their diesel options are in reality just an engine they bought and slapped their name on the cover
VW is actually working/worked on a diesel range extender hbrid system for their recent small car concept projects, like 'up!" etc.:
it combined light weight materials throughout with an electric engine for normal driving and for highway speeds and extending range a small 2 cylinder 0.8 liter diesel engine optimized to run at constant speeds
quite clever actually .. the overall output combined still was around 70 hp or so which combined with a low weight of the car (800-900kg) still was juicy enough
looking at the very current and very genius Fiat Twin Air engines i have to say that very refined turbocharged small displacement/ few cylinder engines are actually the next step over the overly complicated hybrid systems