Reach9
Mar 26, 12:49 AM
Already done eh? Sounds great, can't wait to see it in WWDC.
coolbreeze
Apr 7, 11:35 PM
You might want to look at Best Buy's pricing again.
All iPads, iPods and Macs are sold $.99 (at minimum) above Apple.
Time Capsule 1TB $334.99 at Best Buy, $299.00 at Apple
2TB $499.99, $499.00 at Apple
Airport Extreme - $189.99 at Best Buy $179.00 at Apple
Express, $109.99 at Best Buy, $99.00 at Apple
The small accessories are just as bad. And Apple isn't the only brand they mark over MSRP too. I wouldn't be surprised is Bose products were too.
This.
I went to buy a Time Capsule 1TB from these goons one day and noticed the pricing. I pulled up Apple.com's pricing of the TC and asked the "mac specialist" WHY they are charging a $34.99 premium over Apple themselves. He instantly said "no problem, we'll price match." I told him I'd buy it now for instant gratification, and then order from Amazon for $285 w/no tax and free Prime shipping.
Then I'd return the overpriced "pricematched" one back to best buy. He said I can't do that.
I did it 48 hrs later.
I hate that place. If they just had the MSRP Apple price on the shelf without me having to catch them trying to make an extra few bucks, I would have bought it and walked out happy.
That stunt pissed me off and I hope they had to resell it as an open box.
I hate Best Buy.
All iPads, iPods and Macs are sold $.99 (at minimum) above Apple.
Time Capsule 1TB $334.99 at Best Buy, $299.00 at Apple
2TB $499.99, $499.00 at Apple
Airport Extreme - $189.99 at Best Buy $179.00 at Apple
Express, $109.99 at Best Buy, $99.00 at Apple
The small accessories are just as bad. And Apple isn't the only brand they mark over MSRP too. I wouldn't be surprised is Bose products were too.
This.
I went to buy a Time Capsule 1TB from these goons one day and noticed the pricing. I pulled up Apple.com's pricing of the TC and asked the "mac specialist" WHY they are charging a $34.99 premium over Apple themselves. He instantly said "no problem, we'll price match." I told him I'd buy it now for instant gratification, and then order from Amazon for $285 w/no tax and free Prime shipping.
Then I'd return the overpriced "pricematched" one back to best buy. He said I can't do that.
I did it 48 hrs later.
I hate that place. If they just had the MSRP Apple price on the shelf without me having to catch them trying to make an extra few bucks, I would have bought it and walked out happy.
That stunt pissed me off and I hope they had to resell it as an open box.
I hate Best Buy.
grum
Sep 19, 08:11 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Antares
Sep 13, 11:55 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
One reason this is negative is because there were no performance numbers given.
Yeesh!
One reason this is negative is because there were no performance numbers given.
dmarcoot
Apr 6, 03:37 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
First they need to make a product worthy of rising. A sub par product and user experience will not push Apple.
At any rate, clearly Apple is not resting on laurels with the rest of computing industry as far back as they are in quality, price, experience and their available software ecosystems.
First they need to make a product worthy of rising. A sub par product and user experience will not push Apple.
At any rate, clearly Apple is not resting on laurels with the rest of computing industry as far back as they are in quality, price, experience and their available software ecosystems.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 11:02 AM
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Logically, the next question is if ZFS' 128 bits is enough. According to Bonwick, it has to be. "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."
wow. boiling the oceans. there's a thought that never crossed my mind ;)
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Logically, the next question is if ZFS' 128 bits is enough. According to Bonwick, it has to be. "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."
wow. boiling the oceans. there's a thought that never crossed my mind ;)
Moyank24
Feb 28, 09:22 PM
I copy and pasted from the dictionary application that comes default installed with Macs, thank Apple for the laugh.
You have just introduced this new word "influcenes" which I can't memory match with an word I know. Assuming you mean influences which appears to match contextually, I do not know the answer, scientist do not appear to know either.
I do not know the cause, it appears scientists do not either. Since no one appears to know, what could you possibly have expected from me?
You can blame my work PC for not correcting my awful spelling. :rolleyes:
But, yes, obviously I meant influences.
Also, thank you for admitting what most people on here can see. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have just introduced this new word "influcenes" which I can't memory match with an word I know. Assuming you mean influences which appears to match contextually, I do not know the answer, scientist do not appear to know either.
I do not know the cause, it appears scientists do not either. Since no one appears to know, what could you possibly have expected from me?
You can blame my work PC for not correcting my awful spelling. :rolleyes:
But, yes, obviously I meant influences.
Also, thank you for admitting what most people on here can see. You have no idea what you are talking about.
gnasher729
Sep 19, 02:54 AM
APPLE I NEED A NEW MACBOOK PRO. I NEED FIREWIRE 800, I NEED A DL SuperDrive, i'd like MEMROM.
I found a shop that sells MacBook Pros with Memrom chips. At the same shop, you can buy Rolox watches, Pravda shoes, Gutchy watches, all at knock down prices.
I found a shop that sells MacBook Pros with Memrom chips. At the same shop, you can buy Rolox watches, Pravda shoes, Gutchy watches, all at knock down prices.
Dave00
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
Well, looks like Apple has figured out what to do with all that extra space most of us have on our hard drives. Even though only changes are saved, it seems like this will take up an enormous amount of space, especially for multimedia files like movies, etc. Plus, if only changes are stored, it would seem that to restore a file would entail starting with the original, and applying all the changes since then - wouldn't that take quite a long time? And saving a file would probably take longer too... smells like alot of system slowdown. Still, I'll be very impressed if this actually works without a huge number of bugs - it has to be a phenomenally complicated task to keep track of everything. And it LOOKS really cool. :)
Dave
Dave
triceretops
Apr 27, 09:09 AM
No they won't. They're not going to delete the DB - they're only storing a week. Did you read the story?
For those of us who regularly travel for work between locations but stay away for more than a week, it will be a hit in performance. I just hope there is a setting that allows a larger data file to be kept.
For those of us who regularly travel for work between locations but stay away for more than a week, it will be a hit in performance. I just hope there is a setting that allows a larger data file to be kept.
Raidersmojo
Jun 16, 05:33 PM
I work for radioshack and they were doing a nationwide release at the same time for iphone 4, because when we did the evo release, the east coast took all the phones before the west got anything.
this time they did a major release at 12:00 Central. totally screwed everyone since everyone waited for 1 to generate pins.
luckily, got two for customers, and four for myself (had my dad buy them)
two 32 Gigs and two 16's. I hope they come because our manager was talking about how potentially we might not get the phone.
this time they did a major release at 12:00 Central. totally screwed everyone since everyone waited for 1 to generate pins.
luckily, got two for customers, and four for myself (had my dad buy them)
two 32 Gigs and two 16's. I hope they come because our manager was talking about how potentially we might not get the phone.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
Lord Blackadder
Nov 28, 09:49 PM
It would be a nice idea.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
grum
Sep 19, 10:48 AM
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
Well actually if you were doing processor-intensive music production (which is what I do) the 2.0ghz macbook would be pretty much identical to the 2.0ghz MBP I would imagine.
Well actually if you were doing processor-intensive music production (which is what I do) the 2.0ghz macbook would be pretty much identical to the 2.0ghz MBP I would imagine.
Teddy's
Jul 20, 12:47 PM
"The-Most-Powerful-machine-more-powerful-than-Pentium1-2-3-4-Merom-Conroe-Norah-Or-was-it-Jonah-or-Yonah-Xeon-Neon-Freon-Argon-Vista-Panther-JamesBond-MrBean-Xmen-Batman-and-Jesus-put-together"
And more famous than the Beatles...
And more famous than the Beatles...
soulatrium
Aug 26, 05:53 PM
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
parapup
Apr 12, 10:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
LOL - Rolex reminds me of the spam emails, counterfeits and quirky distribution model - how many buy those real ones anyways? iPhone reminds me not of Rolex but PowerPC macs back in the day - cute in their day but long since kicked by Intel.
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
LOL - Rolex reminds me of the spam emails, counterfeits and quirky distribution model - how many buy those real ones anyways? iPhone reminds me not of Rolex but PowerPC macs back in the day - cute in their day but long since kicked by Intel.
mcmlxix
Apr 11, 12:33 PM
I wonder if altering the typical refresh cycle is due to the Verizon release early this year. I think Apple can afford to play the hardware waiting game if two things:
The new hardware is a big step forward. Part of this is producing one iPhone, regardless of carrier (AT&T and Verizon) as well as compatibility for international travelers. More storage and a much improved processor are givens. I�m really surprised how �laggy� the iPhone 4 feels. A bigger display (without altering the phone�s dimensions) would be icing on the cake. Other than that, hasn�t what can be crammed into the hardware plateaued?
iOS 5 should also a big step forward, and it should come this summer in order to appease those waiting for iPhone 5. iOS really needs to liberate itself from requiring a PC to sync with. This is especially true in regards to the iPad, which is/will become the sole �computer� for a large demographic. But for this to happen, I�m pretty sure iOS will need some sort of file system as well as the ability to mount and be mounted as external volumes. The UI also needs a revamp with some sort of new �secret sauce�.
The new hardware is a big step forward. Part of this is producing one iPhone, regardless of carrier (AT&T and Verizon) as well as compatibility for international travelers. More storage and a much improved processor are givens. I�m really surprised how �laggy� the iPhone 4 feels. A bigger display (without altering the phone�s dimensions) would be icing on the cake. Other than that, hasn�t what can be crammed into the hardware plateaued?
iOS 5 should also a big step forward, and it should come this summer in order to appease those waiting for iPhone 5. iOS really needs to liberate itself from requiring a PC to sync with. This is especially true in regards to the iPad, which is/will become the sole �computer� for a large demographic. But for this to happen, I�m pretty sure iOS will need some sort of file system as well as the ability to mount and be mounted as external volumes. The UI also needs a revamp with some sort of new �secret sauce�.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 20, 09:40 AM
I laugh at both dirt games because of this...
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
Personally, I think Codemasters do a great job with racing games, but the problem is, the games they make are always a little more geared toward arcade-style racing. Realistic enough to really get you into the feel of rallying, or touring cars, or whatever, but not SO realistic that only pros can play the game. The early "Colin McRae Rally" games were tons of fun for that very reason. I only played the demo for Dirt though, so I can't really speak for it.
...Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I didn't like it at all either... until recently. They've finally added production hoppers, where everyone in the race is using the exact same car. It makes for some GREAT racing. I've only done a few races so far, but they have been some of the best yet.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 12:14 PM
I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
Bradley W
Aug 7, 10:27 PM
_
Glideslope
Mar 31, 06:08 PM
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
Exactly. Anyone who did not see this coming deserves what was planned years ago. Likeable, Trustworthy, Product. Google has none.
I laugh at all the Android users about to bend over. Enjoy :apple:
Can't say I disagree.
Exactly. Anyone who did not see this coming deserves what was planned years ago. Likeable, Trustworthy, Product. Google has none.
I laugh at all the Android users about to bend over. Enjoy :apple:
waldobushman
Mar 26, 02:30 PM
There will be some GUI changes. No big deal.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
OS X Lion will merge client and server versions.
iOS will run under OS X with separate A5 emulator
New cloud/MobileMe/iTunes support and software refactoring
Java will still be included by default
Cellular hardware support in OS X
Support for untethered sync between computer and iPad/iPhone
OS X will better support headless operation and strong connectivity between OS X and iOS devices.
FF_productions
Aug 15, 01:04 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?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
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?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
No comments:
Post a Comment