YEMandy
Aug 26, 06:37 PM
Could this mean an iMac update is coming soon as well? I ordered a loaded iMac two weeks ago and it still hasn't shipped yet. The estimated ship date is Aug. 28th with arrival on the 5th...
OllyW
Mar 26, 10:46 AM
Will I be able to get Lion at a discount for the recent purchase or do I pay full price? I was just wondering. Thanks!
You'll only get a discount for Lion if you buy it just before (or after) the release date is announced. They only give you a couple of weeks though, if you buy it now and Lion comes out in the summer you'll be paying the full price.
You'll only get a discount for Lion if you buy it just before (or after) the release date is announced. They only give you a couple of weeks though, if you buy it now and Lion comes out in the summer you'll be paying the full price.
Le Big Mac
Apr 27, 08:27 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
How much is it costing me to send the data to apple so they can crowdsource locations for everyone? I doubt AT&T isn't counting this towards data use.
Multimedia
Aug 18, 10:31 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:30 PM
No software such as Toast 7.1, Handbrake UB. More to the point is not how many cores an application can use but rather how many things can you get done at once. :rolleyes:I think in the next few months the full FCS and Logic will get an update to address this.
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
One thing to note is that IO may become a more limiting factor than number of cores under heavy multitasking, or even just particularly data-heavy apps (multiple streams of raw hires video, for example).
Apricat
Apr 6, 10:03 AM
To everyone who is hoping or Final Cut Server-like integration in the new FCS I have to ask... Have you ever USED the Final Cut Server?!?!?! Talk about a bear of a learning curve!
Asset management is easy if you are organized. If you're not, no amount of asset management software can help you!
Asset management is easy if you are organized. If you're not, no amount of asset management software can help you!
gnasher729
Mar 22, 01:38 PM
You are the funniest poster on here. Thanks for the entertainment. (Not sure if it's your intent, but thanks anyway.)
Here's what he doesn't realise: Every product has both a price, and a value. In case of the iPhone, Apple has left a lot of space for others to undercut it in price. And many people will go for something that is cheaper, even when it doesn't have quite the value. But as we can see now, Apple hasn't left any margin with the iPad for competitors to undercut it in price. If the iPad was starting at around $1000 as had been suggested originally, then Samsung would be able to sell lots and lots of tablets for $499. But the iPad starts at $499. Samsung could sell lots and lots of tablets for $249 or $299, but they can't build them for the price. The reason why none of these tablets are cheaper than the iPad is because they just can't build them cheaper.
For the same price, people are going to buy the original and not a cheap copy. So they will buy and continue buying the iPad. And the iPad is the one that you know will be around next year, unlike others.
Here's what he doesn't realise: Every product has both a price, and a value. In case of the iPhone, Apple has left a lot of space for others to undercut it in price. And many people will go for something that is cheaper, even when it doesn't have quite the value. But as we can see now, Apple hasn't left any margin with the iPad for competitors to undercut it in price. If the iPad was starting at around $1000 as had been suggested originally, then Samsung would be able to sell lots and lots of tablets for $499. But the iPad starts at $499. Samsung could sell lots and lots of tablets for $249 or $299, but they can't build them for the price. The reason why none of these tablets are cheaper than the iPad is because they just can't build them cheaper.
For the same price, people are going to buy the original and not a cheap copy. So they will buy and continue buying the iPad. And the iPad is the one that you know will be around next year, unlike others.
ChrisA
Apr 8, 12:43 AM
I do not intend to be rude, but there is a difference in HDMI cables, no matter what the Internet tells you. Conductors, shielding materials/layers and the way the connectors are put together are a few differentiators. An AudioQuest Coffee cable, for example, which is several hundred dollars ($600 I believe for a 1.5m) is made of pure silver starting with the tips and going the length of the cable. This is not the same as a no name $5 dollar HDMI cable from Amazon.
Yes, but the silver does nothing to improve the signal. HDMI is a digital signal that gets re-clocked at the receiving end. The signal is either inspec or not, there is not "better" or "best". The picture and sound quialty depends only on if the bits got there and nothing else.
Yes, but the silver does nothing to improve the signal. HDMI is a digital signal that gets re-clocked at the receiving end. The signal is either inspec or not, there is not "better" or "best". The picture and sound quialty depends only on if the bits got there and nothing else.
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:51 PM
All formidable looking tablets, it is indeed the year of the tablet, and glad they're becoming price competitive too.
dissdnt
Jun 9, 12:36 AM
Radio Shack is still around. :P
It's probably the best place to go. NO ONE is going to know that Radio Shack has the iPhone. Probably a quicker in and out then Best Buy or an Apple Store.
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
It's probably the best place to go. NO ONE is going to know that Radio Shack has the iPhone. Probably a quicker in and out then Best Buy or an Apple Store.
But honestly this whole trade in thing sounds fishy. Why would they give you 270 for a phone you can buy brand new starting the launch date for half that.
mactoday
Apr 6, 10:55 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Actually 320m performs better then Intel 3000, so the dude is right that graphics chip in SB is slower.
Actually 320m performs better then Intel 3000, so the dude is right that graphics chip in SB is slower.
Dobbs2
Apr 8, 12:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well what happened is the following. They received ipads earlier this week. Didn't sell them because the Sunday ad has that Best Buy will have them in stock. Due to bait and switch laws if the ad has it they have to have a certain amount of stock. Apple didn't like it that we didn't sell through them any way and pull the add.
Well what happened is the following. They received ipads earlier this week. Didn't sell them because the Sunday ad has that Best Buy will have them in stock. Due to bait and switch laws if the ad has it they have to have a certain amount of stock. Apple didn't like it that we didn't sell through them any way and pull the add.
MrCrowbar
Aug 26, 05:51 PM
Well, I have some problems with my MacBook (LCD backlighting flickers horribly sometimes and from time to time the power goes off without reason, even 1 second after powering the mashine on). So I will bring it to the apple store in New Jersey soon. Did you know you can buy an Apple laptop anywhere in the world and get it repaired anywhere else? I bought it in Europe and can get it fixed here. Neato.
Now I wonder if I should wait one or two weeks just in case they want to give me a new one :)
Now I wonder if I should wait one or two weeks just in case they want to give me a new one :)
GekkePrutser
Apr 6, 12:52 PM
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
But that's when modern SSD's do a lot of their housekeeping, stuff like garbage collection. So as SSD's get faster and more advanced you might see the idle power drain get higher.
But that's when modern SSD's do a lot of their housekeeping, stuff like garbage collection. So as SSD's get faster and more advanced you might see the idle power drain get higher.
M-O
Apr 6, 07:01 PM
Apple should forget intel and put a quad-core A6 chip in the MacBook Air. Re-architecture Mac OS to run on ARM (OS Xi) and rule the world.
it may sound crazy now, but you'll see. if anyone knows how to change architectures its Apple. we all know they've got OS X running on an iPad already it the labs.
it may sound crazy now, but you'll see. if anyone knows how to change architectures its Apple. we all know they've got OS X running on an iPad already it the labs.
Soba
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
killmoms
Aug 17, 09:24 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
Hah! Adobe can't even be bothered to make a Cocoa-native version of Photoshop on the Mac. They won't use Core Image because it's an OS X-only technology which can't be ported to Windows without them having to (essentially) write their own framework to mimic its functionality.
Hah! Adobe can't even be bothered to make a Cocoa-native version of Photoshop on the Mac. They won't use Core Image because it's an OS X-only technology which can't be ported to Windows without them having to (essentially) write their own framework to mimic its functionality.
dextertangocci
Aug 11, 10:22 AM
Please Apple, make it the best phone ever!
I am using a Nokia 1100 at the moment:rolleyes: :eek: :o , and would love an upgrade, but would prefer to wait for the iPhone:cool: :D :)
I am using a Nokia 1100 at the moment:rolleyes: :eek: :o , and would love an upgrade, but would prefer to wait for the iPhone:cool: :D :)
layte
Mar 31, 03:30 PM
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
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.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
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.
generik
Jul 15, 08:21 AM
1. Notice the power plug hole at the top? Now imagine a cord running out of it. Yup, there is a reason why Apple has put it at the bottom.
2. Top heavy.
There are advantages to having it on top too.
1) Hot air from components in the case rises to the top of the case..
2) Fan in PSU vents it out of system
2. Top heavy.
There are advantages to having it on top too.
1) Hot air from components in the case rises to the top of the case..
2) Fan in PSU vents it out of system
MacRumorUser
Nov 27, 04:13 PM
Gran Turismo: The REAL driving simulator ....as long as you've grinded long enough. :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
No comments:
Post a Comment