Dunepilot
Aug 8, 04:03 AM
I'm glad that Leopard will be completely (that's what they say, at least) 64-bit. I'm not sure why it's important to go on about the applications as if they were important to the operating system itself. Increased integration like what was displayed would cause the anti-trust machine to whip into action, if it was Microsoft instead of Apple.
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
Yeah, my first thought was - oh yeah, that's just like Rewind. However, the poweronsoftware.com website now forwards to http://www.nowsoftware.com/, so maybe Rewind has been bought out by Apple to use as Time Machine. Anyone know any more about this?
Dune
Time Machine is not exactly revolutionary, considering that there were a few 3rd party products available--Rewind comes to mind--that journaled changes and allowed them to be restored. Still, it should stop the various threads "I accidentally deleted..." :)
Hopefully, the features not mentioned will include a better kernel that actually performs well. It would be nice to see operating system benchmarks that don't make me cringe when I look at the Mac OS X results.
Xcode version 3.0 looks good but they still haven't provided many details.
Yeah, my first thought was - oh yeah, that's just like Rewind. However, the poweronsoftware.com website now forwards to http://www.nowsoftware.com/, so maybe Rewind has been bought out by Apple to use as Time Machine. Anyone know any more about this?
Dune
840quadra
Aug 16, 10:55 PM
I still love my PowerPC Mac. I'm gonna shed a tear some day when I retire it. This thing is rock solid and fast (enough) :cool:
I agree, Especially considering the fact that 4 months before I bought it, I was running on a Pentium 450 as a primary computer.
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
I agree, Especially considering the fact that 4 months before I bought it, I was running on a Pentium 450 as a primary computer.
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
dadoftwogirls
Apr 6, 04:07 PM
Like someone an early poster said, you want a little competition to keep Apple moving forward. But 100k in two months? Apple's motto seems to be defeat, crush and humiliate your opponents then dominate. It's going to be hard for competition facing that.
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 08:37 PM
But Intel did not force Apple to use Intel's IGP, Apple could have added separate graphics chipset just as they did with the MBP. Which wouldn't really make sense on an MBA IMO.
Intel did indeed force Apple to use their IGP by not licensing other vendors to provide IGPs. The reason the MBP 13" and MBA 13" use IGPs and not dedicated GPU is one of space. Apple can't magically conjure up space on the logic board.
If I didn't already have an MBA and had the option between the current crop and the SB variant, I'd pick the SB without thinking twice about it and I doubt i'm in the minority.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
Intel did indeed force Apple to use their IGP by not licensing other vendors to provide IGPs. The reason the MBP 13" and MBA 13" use IGPs and not dedicated GPU is one of space. Apple can't magically conjure up space on the logic board.
If I didn't already have an MBA and had the option between the current crop and the SB variant, I'd pick the SB without thinking twice about it and I doubt i'm in the minority.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
KnightWRX
Apr 6, 10:58 AM
What do you intend to do on an Air that will require what little extra power the nvidia gfx offers over Intel. You sure as hell can't game with it.
You sure as hell can.
You sure as hell can.
tk421
Nov 29, 01:38 PM
Not true. Apple doesn't need the iTunes Store since all iPods are full of stolen music! ;)
No kidding! Hasn't Apple done enough to promote legal music purchases?
No kidding! Hasn't Apple done enough to promote legal music purchases?
guet
Aug 12, 06:28 AM
I've never paid for a phone up til now (as is the case with most UK residents I'd assume) so it would be an impressive feat if Apple can persuade people in this type of marketplace to actually put their hands in their pockets for a phone.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
moochermaulucci
Apr 6, 05:05 PM
Or...
It could be considered being close minded and afraid of new things.
Just saying, you know?
Yes, it could...
...and then again, maybe not. Brilliant deduction. Great, now we're no further along than we were three posts ago.
It could be considered being close minded and afraid of new things.
Just saying, you know?
Yes, it could...
...and then again, maybe not. Brilliant deduction. Great, now we're no further along than we were three posts ago.
Phat Elvis
Aug 11, 10:27 AM
I would love to see a smartphone from Apple. Palm reliability is in the gutter and it doesn't look like Apple (or anyone else) is into making PDA's.
I just hope that we don't have to re-buy any music from iTunes just to play on the phone.
I'm really glad that this rumor cleared things up about when an Apple phone will be released :rolleyes: .
I just hope that we don't have to re-buy any music from iTunes just to play on the phone.
I'm really glad that this rumor cleared things up about when an Apple phone will be released :rolleyes: .
ChrisA
Aug 16, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.
extraextra
Aug 26, 09:24 PM
The update time for Apple's store is 9am EST? I was under the impression that it was 9am PST. I'm behind the times! (pun intended, I suppose)
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
Stella
Nov 29, 09:31 AM
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
enda1
Aug 11, 06:56 PM
Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
Signed,
Stevie J ;)
skellener
Apr 8, 01:38 AM
WTF??? I have a ********** credit I've been wanting to use at BB for an iPad2 since before it even came out. They sold out so fast I've been waiting for the restock, and now this? F%*$#!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
iJawn108
Aug 7, 03:26 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
twoodcc
Aug 5, 08:41 PM
NO iPODS OR iPHONE I DON'T CARE FOR THEM ONE JOT
Ok, Stevie J, You can introduce the Mac Pro, the new XServe, and Leopard on Monday.
But please don't deny us our new conroe iMac with x1800XT! Release it on Tuesday!!! And Merom Macbooks and Macbook Pros. You will lose too many sales and potential switchers if you wait until the end of September!
Plus I'll cry.
We beggs of you Stevie J, we wants it, we needs it, it must come to me!
The iMac Ultra is mine. My own. My precious.
Alright, give precious back to master now......
Ok, Stevie J, You can introduce the Mac Pro, the new XServe, and Leopard on Monday.
But please don't deny us our new conroe iMac with x1800XT! Release it on Tuesday!!! And Merom Macbooks and Macbook Pros. You will lose too many sales and potential switchers if you wait until the end of September!
Plus I'll cry.
We beggs of you Stevie J, we wants it, we needs it, it must come to me!
The iMac Ultra is mine. My own. My precious.
Alright, give precious back to master now......
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
GFLPraxis
Mar 31, 02:32 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
I don't disagree that it was a smart move, either. It WAS a bait and switch though. Most of us realized that making the OS open would result in a ton of forks with horrible UI and poor casual user experience- look at Linux on the desktop.
I think Google is doing the right thing to give Android a better product. However, that doesn't make it not hypocritical, or the exact opposite of everything they promised their clients (the manufacturers).
Google finally figured out that they need to exert control to keep the OS consistent and the user experience good. Problem is, doing that also means going against everything they spent the last three years preaching against.
Also, it's extremely important to note that the criticisms being leveled against Google is that they're showing favoritism and imposing addition restrictions on competitors such as Facebook, if you read the articles.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
I don't disagree that it was a smart move, either. It WAS a bait and switch though. Most of us realized that making the OS open would result in a ton of forks with horrible UI and poor casual user experience- look at Linux on the desktop.
I think Google is doing the right thing to give Android a better product. However, that doesn't make it not hypocritical, or the exact opposite of everything they promised their clients (the manufacturers).
Google finally figured out that they need to exert control to keep the OS consistent and the user experience good. Problem is, doing that also means going against everything they spent the last three years preaching against.
Also, it's extremely important to note that the criticisms being leveled against Google is that they're showing favoritism and imposing addition restrictions on competitors such as Facebook, if you read the articles.
GFLPraxis
Mar 31, 02:32 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
I don't disagree that it was a smart move, either. It WAS a bait and switch though. Most of us realized that making the OS open would result in a ton of forks with horrible UI and poor casual user experience- look at Linux on the desktop.
I think Google is doing the right thing to give Android a better product. However, that doesn't make it not hypocritical, or the exact opposite of everything they promised their clients (the manufacturers).
Google finally figured out that they need to exert control to keep the OS consistent and the user experience good. Problem is, doing that also means going against everything they spent the last three years preaching against.
Also, it's extremely important to note that the criticisms being leveled against Google is that they're showing favoritism and imposing addition restrictions on competitors such as Facebook, if you read the articles.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
I don't disagree that it was a smart move, either. It WAS a bait and switch though. Most of us realized that making the OS open would result in a ton of forks with horrible UI and poor casual user experience- look at Linux on the desktop.
I think Google is doing the right thing to give Android a better product. However, that doesn't make it not hypocritical, or the exact opposite of everything they promised their clients (the manufacturers).
Google finally figured out that they need to exert control to keep the OS consistent and the user experience good. Problem is, doing that also means going against everything they spent the last three years preaching against.
Also, it's extremely important to note that the criticisms being leveled against Google is that they're showing favoritism and imposing addition restrictions on competitors such as Facebook, if you read the articles.
Texas04
Nov 28, 06:29 PM
That would add already to the money that they get from the purchased music.. Apple will not allow this... at least they shouldnt, and wouldnt Universal be happy as is?
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
Microsoft started this and it is a good hit into Apple... but Apple has a agreement and will not break that agreement... especially to get rid of the ease of 99 cent standard pricing
MacsRgr8
Aug 5, 04:02 PM
Me excited too! :)
I've made plans with some ex-colleagues to follow the event live using the text-based coverage made available.
Let me thank MacRumors : Live already!
It'll be 6 pm over here, so we'll be ready with some pizzas and cokes! ;)
Then once I get home a couple of hours later, I can watch the stream! :cool:
I've made plans with some ex-colleagues to follow the event live using the text-based coverage made available.
Let me thank MacRumors : Live already!
It'll be 6 pm over here, so we'll be ready with some pizzas and cokes! ;)
Then once I get home a couple of hours later, I can watch the stream! :cool:
Nuck81
Dec 1, 11:18 AM
Cool thanks. I will give this a try. Anything to get this bus done. I hate the tasks where whatever it is you are driving is real slow!
Heh, if you like driving the bus, you'll LOVE the next two races at Top Gear...
Heh, if you like driving the bus, you'll LOVE the next two races at Top Gear...
tjanuranus
Mar 27, 03:35 AM
I really want Lion, for the number one reason being TRIM support. I eagerly want to finally start using an SSD (specifically one from Crucial, since they make the fastest ones on the market), but have avoided doing so since the latest version Snow Leopard does not support TRIM.
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
this is not true. The Mercury elite pro SSD from OWC was just used in the fastest over clocking competition winner because it's the fastest and requires NO Trim support in OSX. I have one in my laptop right now, ZERO slow down.
http://blog.macsales.com/9530-owc-mercury-extreme-pro-re-solid-state-drive-used-to-set-overclocking-world-record
It's a shame Apple is waiting so long to finally include TRIM support. Windows 7 already includes it.
I think I'll wait until 10.7.3 comes out before upgrading, though. If there are bugs in the TRIM implementation, I fear it may corrupt data.
this is not true. The Mercury elite pro SSD from OWC was just used in the fastest over clocking competition winner because it's the fastest and requires NO Trim support in OSX. I have one in my laptop right now, ZERO slow down.
http://blog.macsales.com/9530-owc-mercury-extreme-pro-re-solid-state-drive-used-to-set-overclocking-world-record
shelterpaw
Jul 20, 11:11 AM
I think Logic can only use two cores/processors with a cludge to use the other two on a quad (by pretending it's a remote machine). Someone told me this though so I'm not 100% on that.I'm not sure either and I shouldn't have made the assumption. I know Ableton and Cubase do as I've used both and I'm now an avid Ableton user. I'd imagine Logic will take full advantage sometime soon since it's now one of Apple's pro applications. It certainly makes sense considering how bogged down your system gets once you load enough virtual instruments and effects.
