jacg
Jul 27, 10:22 AM
Ah and where has the wireless mouse/kbd option gone in the store? Maybe they will be free with the upgraded iMacs.
According to the bluetooth mighty mouse info at apple.com, you still need a wired keyboard and mouse to install the thing. When you went for the wireless option before, did you get a wired keyboard too?
Also, are there any how-to guides for upgrading Yonah iMacs to Merom?
According to the bluetooth mighty mouse info at apple.com, you still need a wired keyboard and mouse to install the thing. When you went for the wireless option before, did you get a wired keyboard too?
Also, are there any how-to guides for upgrading Yonah iMacs to Merom?
miniConvert
Mar 22, 12:47 PM
Samsung redesigned the 10.1 'just like that' did they? Wow, that's going to be one impressive piece of carefully considered and crafted engineering if they poured over it for such an extensive amount of time.... </sarcasm>
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
62tele
Mar 31, 05:19 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
I thought your post was stupid and full of vitriol. Then I read your tag line and considered your level of intellect!
I thought your post was stupid and full of vitriol. Then I read your tag line and considered your level of intellect!
Popeye206
Mar 31, 03:43 PM
Oh, Lordy! The Fandroids were always delusional, but reading some of these comments�this seems to have pushed them over the line into some sort of clinical psychosis.
It's because they're learning that offering a commercial product like a college science project is good for developers, but stinks for consumers and the real world. Basically... Google is learning this too.
I've always believed that if Google doesn't start imposing some limits and "walls" the Android OS will get out of control and you'll have 20 versions of it out there all running in their own direction.
It's because they're learning that offering a commercial product like a college science project is good for developers, but stinks for consumers and the real world. Basically... Google is learning this too.
I've always believed that if Google doesn't start imposing some limits and "walls" the Android OS will get out of control and you'll have 20 versions of it out there all running in their own direction.
Highland
Nov 28, 06:49 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:46 PM
Are you talking about the Newton, troll?
http://www.thocp.net/hardware/pictures/pda/apple_newton_sml.jpg
I had a Casio Personal Diary in the late 80's that had the exact same grid.
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
http://www.thocp.net/hardware/pictures/pda/apple_newton_sml.jpg
I had a Casio Personal Diary in the late 80's that had the exact same grid.
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
mcgillmaine
Jun 23, 01:48 PM
Now the two stores that were getting phones are saying they haven't got any in yet. so i'm going to pass on RS. Maybe i'll just trade my old phone for a case or something else.
ChickenSwartz
Jul 27, 11:54 AM
Has anyone ever thought that the reasons the MBPs run hot is because they were originally designed to have a cooler chip in them...Merom.
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
balamw
Apr 6, 04:22 PM
He's still using that 2,000,000 Tabs "shipped", adding it to iPads sold in the same period, and finding the Tab's number is 30% of the total. Very..."smooth", could I say?
These would be the very same Tabs I see pallets of at Costco, while everyone else is sold out of iPad 2s. Got it.
B
These would be the very same Tabs I see pallets of at Costco, while everyone else is sold out of iPad 2s. Got it.
B
milo
Jul 27, 04:07 PM
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.
IceMacMac
Apr 10, 08:47 PM
The pro of today is no longer the pro of the past decade. Pro is a far broader term in 2011. Nearly anyone could be a 'pro' with a little interest, work, and dedication.
To me the term denotes a person who is gaining a sizeable portion of their income from video production...and whom is talented enough to woo paying clients.
So in my opinion the meaning for "Pro" has changed little.
To me the term denotes a person who is gaining a sizeable portion of their income from video production...and whom is talented enough to woo paying clients.
So in my opinion the meaning for "Pro" has changed little.
hulugu
Mar 22, 04:13 PM
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office....
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
Hayley Williams
hayley williams wallpaper.
hayley williams wallpaper hd.
hayley williams wallpaper
williams wallpaper hd.
hayley williams wallpaper hd.
hayley williams wallpaper hd.
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
NickUK69
Apr 11, 11:37 AM
Also... with many people on 12 and 18 month contracts, mobile carriers will be wanting to keep customers by signing them to new contracts and in doing so, a new phone. There will be no new iPhone and people will have 'beaten up' 18 month old equipment which they will want to renew and there will be no iPhone, so Android could be onto a winner here!
Hi
With all the Android phones coming out and manufacturers having no specific cycle, the iPhone is really out of date already!
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
Therefore the above three phones are all 'old' regarding what was released around the same time.
iPhone 4 - will be about 18 months old by the time the iPhone 5 comes out.
People will loose interest in Apple iPhones with so many other new releases coming out on a regular basis.
Hi
With all the Android phones coming out and manufacturers having no specific cycle, the iPhone is really out of date already!
iPhone 1 - 2G
iPhone 2 - adds 3G
iPhone 3 - adds 3GS
Therefore the above three phones are all 'old' regarding what was released around the same time.
iPhone 4 - will be about 18 months old by the time the iPhone 5 comes out.
People will loose interest in Apple iPhones with so many other new releases coming out on a regular basis.
janstett
Sep 15, 07:57 AM
I remember reading a BBC news article the other month about mRAM (or magnetic RAM) which has the same write speeds as RAM, but without its volatility. It doesn't loose it's data when the power is off. Ideal for fast HDDs they say.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
Yeah, I think they're calling them "Hybrid drives" where they will have some fast static RAM built into a hard drive and store the most frequently accessed part of the drive in cache on the static RAM.
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
You used to be able to do that with ramdisks, but getting the files onto the ramdisk took more time than just booting from the disk. Sometimes you can force the OS to keep itself in RAM when it's loaded from disk (so the OS won't start swapping itself out when it needs memory), there's a setting for this in Tweak XP.
john123
Sep 19, 09:33 AM
Addressing larger RAM partitions is not the #1 advantage for me. I will not be putting >4GB of memory into my laptop. And I suspect it is not the #1 advantage for most of the people posting in this thread. If you don't like the subject matter of this thread, then don't read it. Simple as that.
You're so wrong. Most people posting in this thread don't have a clue what 64 bit computing really means. They just think they have to have it because it's the newest thing.
You're so wrong. Most people posting in this thread don't have a clue what 64 bit computing really means. They just think they have to have it because it's the newest thing.
Island Dog
Aug 25, 08:24 PM
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
MrCrowbar
Aug 26, 10:21 PM
Yes, and as someone has already pointed out, if the Core2 can do 20% better with the same power, can't you just throttle your new Core2 MBP down 20% and get a laptop with the same performance of your old one with 20% better battery life?
Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. :rolleyes:
You won't get 20% more battery life unless the screens and other components don't get more power efficient too. I think 7% battery life increase is more realistic. You can already upgrade todays macbooks with more RAM (saves HDD work) and more efficient HDDs. With the screen brightness down, I get 6 and a half hours of text editing out of that thing.
Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. :rolleyes:
You won't get 20% more battery life unless the screens and other components don't get more power efficient too. I think 7% battery life increase is more realistic. You can already upgrade todays macbooks with more RAM (saves HDD work) and more efficient HDDs. With the screen brightness down, I get 6 and a half hours of text editing out of that thing.
backdraft
Aug 26, 04:30 PM
Yet iBooks and PowerBooks (PPC based systems) are part of this most recent battery recall (and a prior one)... it has nothing to do with switching to Intel. Apple has been using standard commodity parts in their systems for a VERY long time now.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
From the looks of it PPC based Mac's have MUCH fewer issues.
...and while you are at the site why not look at some non-Intel based systems...
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Titanium_PowerBook_G4
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=PowerBook_12%22
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ibook
From the looks of it PPC based Mac's have MUCH fewer issues.
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
Bakey
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
Im guessing hopefully by the years end for the G5.... :) :)
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 08:19 AM
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Wow, Apple is planning putting in all points I had asked for in a post ? :eek: Good Job Cupertino, well played. :D
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Wow, Apple is planning putting in all points I had asked for in a post ? :eek: Good Job Cupertino, well played. :D
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 11:36 AM
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.
The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Willis
Jul 30, 11:09 AM
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
actually.... that looks really good. If apple were to incorperate that... man... it'll be a good seller
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
actually.... that looks really good. If apple were to incorperate that... man... it'll be a good seller
