spicyapple
Aug 29, 01:54 PM
Hope they bring back the $499 price point, Merom or not
I agree. :)
I was shocked when the price of the core duo minis increased in price above $500. As mentioned several times, that is the reason to buy a Mac mini. I think we'll see meroms in the iMacs as they represent the mid-level Macs in Apples line-up.
I agree. :)
I was shocked when the price of the core duo minis increased in price above $500. As mentioned several times, that is the reason to buy a Mac mini. I think we'll see meroms in the iMacs as they represent the mid-level Macs in Apples line-up.
ojwk
Jan 12, 07:29 AM
People here seem to want to condone ANY decision Apple may wish to make. Already people seem to be defensive on the "MacBook Air" name which is probably just a rumor and also seem to be defensive of Apple's decision to remove the optical drive - something we don't even know will happen! People are defensive of Apple's decision to ship the new Mac Pros with the 8800GT and not something of higher spec, people are defensive of Apple's decision not to release a mid-tower.
I'm a big Apple fan myself but sometimes I do see the point many anti-Mac people make that many Apple 'fanboys' will simply defend any decision Apple may or may not make! It doesn't show loyalty or devotion to the brand but a sheep like quality that really isn't desirable.
If you can't formulate your own opinions on stuff then that really doesn't corroborate with the Apple marketing and ethos. "Think Different" etc..
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
Very good point.
Plastic is incredibly hard to recycle as there are many different types that need to be sorted and lots of those can't even be recycled. An example of this is the caps on plastic bottles of Coke etc. This material cannot be recycled - at least my local refuse authority refuses to deal with it.
Aluminum on the other hand is definitely one of the most recyclable materials out there. It is a simple process of melting it down, purification and formation into ingots of aluminum.
I'm a big Apple fan myself but sometimes I do see the point many anti-Mac people make that many Apple 'fanboys' will simply defend any decision Apple may or may not make! It doesn't show loyalty or devotion to the brand but a sheep like quality that really isn't desirable.
If you can't formulate your own opinions on stuff then that really doesn't corroborate with the Apple marketing and ethos. "Think Different" etc..
Say what? It may have a higher melting point than plastic, but it's the most recyclable material out there. Plastic often can't even be used in the same application multiple times, and ends up being "downcycled" into something completely different. Wikipedia says recycling aluminum is 95% more efficient than making it from ore; recycling plastic is only 70% more efficient than making it new.
Very good point.
Plastic is incredibly hard to recycle as there are many different types that need to be sorted and lots of those can't even be recycled. An example of this is the caps on plastic bottles of Coke etc. This material cannot be recycled - at least my local refuse authority refuses to deal with it.
Aluminum on the other hand is definitely one of the most recyclable materials out there. It is a simple process of melting it down, purification and formation into ingots of aluminum.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 08:56 AM
No Merom? :( Mac mini and Mac Pro drifting even further apart now. Although TS have been quite unreliable lately so I'm going to wait for AppleInsider's take on it.
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:04 PM
So are there any live updates?
rdowns
Mar 19, 05:50 PM
Haven't you heard?
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
Cold fusion is being suppressed, for now, just like the 100 mpg carburettor was. :)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get your attributions straight old man. I didn't say that.
marksman
Mar 25, 05:57 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 01:37 PM
Mac Pro's have big power supplies but thats mainly for the CPU and Ram, adding a 6970 would be pushing its limits, especially for gaming.
Well, true, but unlike Apple's more portable offerings, there is nothing ,technologically or physically at least, stopping them from providing a psu in the next iteration of the Mac Pro that is capable of powering the later power-hungry gpu monsters.
Well, true, but unlike Apple's more portable offerings, there is nothing ,technologically or physically at least, stopping them from providing a psu in the next iteration of the Mac Pro that is capable of powering the later power-hungry gpu monsters.
AppliedVisual
Nov 26, 07:33 PM
They shipped the XServe but there is no longer an XServe Cluster node model. Apple used to ship a stipped down XServe with only one drive. You used to be able to get dual processors in the Cluster Node for the price of a single Proc XServe [proper].
The Cluster nodes had better price/performance but they weren't designed for running real 24x7 server tasks.
ffakr.
Ah, I see... But then again, you have more config options if you talk to one of Apple's business consultants and you can configure an Xserve with no drives if you'd like. Not sure what else the prior cluster node configurations had though, I guess I was unaware of their existence -- never saw them on the site, but I didn't really look.
The Cluster nodes had better price/performance but they weren't designed for running real 24x7 server tasks.
ffakr.
Ah, I see... But then again, you have more config options if you talk to one of Apple's business consultants and you can configure an Xserve with no drives if you'd like. Not sure what else the prior cluster node configurations had though, I guess I was unaware of their existence -- never saw them on the site, but I didn't really look.
RBD2
Sep 14, 10:44 AM
http://tinyurl.com/yed7h3p
topgunn
Nov 27, 01:34 PM
Built-in iSights, now there's an idea! :D
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
Asus has this (http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=10&l2=88&l3=367&model=1136&modelmenu=1) display which includes speakers and a webcam. It would be nice if Apple introduced a similar concept with a display only. It would be prefect for the Mac mini.
a104375
May 2, 04:41 PM
The bigger question is, should Apple dumb OS X Lion down to allow the iOS people to have an easier transition, just seems like it undermines the quality of the product especially for the people who already know and like OS X SL the way it is.
Perhaps when you first start up the computer they can have a "Do you want iOS mode or Fanboy mode?"
Perhaps when you first start up the computer they can have a "Do you want iOS mode or Fanboy mode?"
Chris Bangle
Jan 7, 01:41 PM
Apple=30years ipod=5years website=10 years apprently... Any other momentous birthdays?
Popeye206
May 2, 05:30 PM
I got a another newbie question
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
I am planning on moving out of Windows (7) and onto MAC OS X, but I want to wait for Lion since its close to a finished product. Now my question is, if Lion comes out, would that mean every Mac (Mac Pro, iMac, iMac mini, Macbook, MB Pros, etc) would have Lion installed/packaged or is there a specific mac that will have Lion on its first day and the other macs would have to wait???
I wouldn't worry about the OS... all new Macs will run Lion and depending on the specifics, you'll probably get the upgrade for free or very cheap. Also, unless Apple chances something, past upgrades can be easily installed on multiple machines. Where MS has Windows licensed to a CPU, Apple does not care. They don't make that much money on the OS sales, they make the money on the hardware.
So, if you're going to wait for anything, I would wait for the World Wide Developers Conference in June and see what's announced there, then make your purchase. Then you'll have a good idea of what's new and be ready for Lion.
Welcome aboard!
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
True dat ... This is going to be my first iMac ... I have never owned an apple computer before .. Bought my first iPhone last year
... iPhone 4 ... That was such a wonderful day ... Can't wait
Congrats!
True dat ... This is going to be my first iMac ... I have never owned an apple computer before .. Bought my first iPhone last year
... iPhone 4 ... That was such a wonderful day ... Can't wait
Congrats!
direzz
Aug 16, 08:06 PM
i dont really think the ipod needs to be updated.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
evilgEEk
Sep 6, 01:03 PM
I've been waiting for this update for a few weeks now, need to get a new computer for the office. But now I'm really torn between the mini and the low end iMac.
Frankly I'm thinkin the iMac. :confused:
Frankly I'm thinkin the iMac. :confused:
richard.mac
Feb 17, 09:55 PM
those are pretty standard sized studio monitoring speakers. i like the audio interface which one is it? is it a DAC and headphone amp too?
elppa
Jan 11, 05:29 PM
like i submitted and you ignored completely...they are of the aluminum build which would make it appear to be on the PRO side. Why would they build something identical to the current macbook???
Just like the "professional" iPods are all aluminium, and the "professional" iMac, not to mention the "professional" iPhone.
Apple is going Alumium across the product line, for environmental reasons. The MacBooks will be the last plastic Macs made.
Also, anyone who has paid any attention during physics will know that if you want to make a laptop thinner than the current MacBook, then plastic just won't cut it for build quality. You'll need a stronger material to get the strength.
Just like the "professional" iPods are all aluminium, and the "professional" iMac, not to mention the "professional" iPhone.
Apple is going Alumium across the product line, for environmental reasons. The MacBooks will be the last plastic Macs made.
Also, anyone who has paid any attention during physics will know that if you want to make a laptop thinner than the current MacBook, then plastic just won't cut it for build quality. You'll need a stronger material to get the strength.
kdarling
Apr 26, 02:44 PM
I think that these two quotes from Tim Cook during the last Apple quarterly call, put the nail in the coffin:
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
"We've got the largest app store ..."
"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "
Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.
stankuo
Sep 14, 11:18 PM
I got the incipio case for itouch 4g, it is pretty decent. Ordered it yesterday from amazon and it arrived today.
Galex
Sep 7, 07:39 AM
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song. I think this would be especially great for movies. That way you won't have to eat up precious hard drive space. You could purchase your movie, download it, watch it, delete it, and then re-download the movie if you want to view it again.
My thought exactly! Apple should be the holder of a virtual movie library, in which you would have access to all the films you have ever bought from Apple, possibly limited to a fixed number of computers per account. iTunes or some new software would keep track of the films in your library, including all kinds of information and trivia about the movies you have purchased. You should be able to save your films on your own hard drive or DVD-R if you wish, but Apple would provide the long-term storage capacity necessary for people who have large collections.
/Galex
My thought exactly! Apple should be the holder of a virtual movie library, in which you would have access to all the films you have ever bought from Apple, possibly limited to a fixed number of computers per account. iTunes or some new software would keep track of the films in your library, including all kinds of information and trivia about the movies you have purchased. You should be able to save your films on your own hard drive or DVD-R if you wish, but Apple would provide the long-term storage capacity necessary for people who have large collections.
/Galex
Piggie
Mar 26, 09:10 AM
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
oMc
Feb 28, 02:41 PM
@benjayman2 : very nice setup.
