aiqw9182
Mar 25, 01:55 PM
That's not the correct answer. The possible answers concerning the documented hardware capabilities are:
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.
I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".
- That's not enough for any OpenCL
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.0
- That's enough for OpenCL 1.1
That's not the correct answer? Lol, how much longer are you going to waste my time for? DirectX in it of itself is not related to OpenCL. They are once again, two separate entities. Support for OpenCL 1.0 means support for OpenCL 1.1. DirectCompute was introduced in DX11 but can be used on DX10 hardware.
I've been sitting here correcting your mis-information, false accusations and asking for you to post some OpenCL applications you've been using. Don't respond until you give me an example of your OpenCL workflow. You seem to love AMD's CPU's but likely have never used one seeing as you have said Windows doesn't cut it and Linux "doesn't have enough commercial applications".
kellen
Jan 27, 09:57 AM
of course i got it fully loaded with Bose Sound etc.
Of course.
Just made me laugh reading that.
Of course.
Just made me laugh reading that.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 11:37 AM
I love how "gays" freak out when non-homosexual people do something. But yet when "gays" want to do something extreme it's because we don't accept them, so when they get in trouble it's a huge ordeal.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
kadajawi
Sep 6, 11:21 AM
Now that the Minis are Core Duo I like it more. Even though it's still $599 ($579 Edu) for the low end, it is at least not a solo. The Mini is still a good computer for a low end price range, even if it isn't the very newest processor available. I would definitely recommend a Mini, but since the iMac is so close in the Edu department, it is a little tough for the 1.83 clockspeed.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
I don't think the iMac is so close. The low end iMac doesn't has a superdrive, no Front Row remote... it does have more than twice the HD and a slightly faster CPU, but other than that it seems pretty identical to the low end Mac Mini. That means $400 gets me a not so big TFT screen (far less than $200... although the quality may be better on the iMac... but you would get a bigger one for less than $200...), a bit more and faster storage space (external HD? How much is that? $100 for a small one (still bigger than the iMacs 160 GB, if you take the built in space. And you can make use of Time Machine)), and a slightly faster CPU (not a big deal to me) + you get Front Row.
If you don't mind you can get an external superdrive. A DVD writer is 30 � here, dunno about the case. Might be faster too. And you may upgrade the drive to Blue Ray or HD-DVD, later.
Built
Nov 16, 06:25 AM
I was an early adopter on iPhone 1st gen. I upgraded to iPhone 3G 18 months later. Skipped 3GS, and ordered the iPhone 4 on June 15th during the big frenzy.
My iPhone 4 was delivered to my home the day before launch day.
Granted I have always had a cheap thin rubberized case around my iPhone 4 (but I have also had one on all my other iPhones as well)...but the iPhone 4 has given me BETTER service...fewer dropped calls...increased versatility...amazing battery life...better screen...faster response...than any of my other iPhones...
While long ago, I generally enjoyed Consumer Reports, I believe their stance is nothing more than a blatant attempt at sensationalism based on initial reports of iPhone issues.
Personally, over the years, I have seen Consumer Reports almost imperceptibly slide into what it is today...a largely commercialized rag which long ago lost its "pro-consumer, anti-establishment" focus.
My iPhone 4 was delivered to my home the day before launch day.
Granted I have always had a cheap thin rubberized case around my iPhone 4 (but I have also had one on all my other iPhones as well)...but the iPhone 4 has given me BETTER service...fewer dropped calls...increased versatility...amazing battery life...better screen...faster response...than any of my other iPhones...
While long ago, I generally enjoyed Consumer Reports, I believe their stance is nothing more than a blatant attempt at sensationalism based on initial reports of iPhone issues.
Personally, over the years, I have seen Consumer Reports almost imperceptibly slide into what it is today...a largely commercialized rag which long ago lost its "pro-consumer, anti-establishment" focus.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 04:33 AM
Just need to find something to pass the time until 3 am.:rolleyes:
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
Not too brag or anything :D but it works out great for us in UK. Get in from work 5.30pm / open a beer / macrumors / keynote 6pm / tears of joy / rob bank 9pm / buy mac pro :D
iMikeT
Jan 1, 06:43 PM
I thought the keynote was scheduled to take place on Jan 8.:confused:
ingenious
Apr 8, 10:50 AM
did anyone noticce that imac_japan didnt respond to my comment about how HE should listen to the "other" side of the story? LOL somebody's a sore loser. no offense, but its a little obvious. i may get flamed for this, so i apologize in advance! :D
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...
jeffu
Nov 29, 09:06 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I agree completely - yes the Zune has some issues and yes it's a bit too big right now and yes I love my Ipod - but I do think the competition is a good thing - the graphics on the Zune are really sweet! Come on, Apple is the graphics champ and looking at the menus for iPod compared to Zune it's easy to see Apple could and should be doing more.
Also the screen - great idea to have it rotate .
Like I said - still love the ipod, but would like to see some of these the enhancements roll over to the apple side.
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I agree completely - yes the Zune has some issues and yes it's a bit too big right now and yes I love my Ipod - but I do think the competition is a good thing - the graphics on the Zune are really sweet! Come on, Apple is the graphics champ and looking at the menus for iPod compared to Zune it's easy to see Apple could and should be doing more.
Also the screen - great idea to have it rotate .
Like I said - still love the ipod, but would like to see some of these the enhancements roll over to the apple side.
GregA
Nov 29, 05:21 PM
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes. However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news.
Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it quite that way but it makes great sense. Apple can make a deal for streaming news relatively cheaply (maybe free). Sport will be a premium (think of the standard costs for subscribing to sports on cable), but ESPN (via Disney) may be quite willing to do that, and so might others.
That would pretty well replace the need for traditional PayTV - though I still think there's a gap on rental (or subscription?) of TV shows & movies that I only want to watch ONCE.
I think iTV will include 'remote desktop' functionality - if you have a BT mouse and keyboard then you will be able to operate your Mac that is in another room via iTV.
Not sure if it's needed, but would be interesting. Especially a remote desktop that can run without the user on the computer knowing that you're connected (on a separate account).
"Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. "
Yeah, Apple is playing an interesting balancing game there....
?In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media CenterPerhaps using a 3rd party like Elgato with EyeTV is the answer to making the iTV a DVR - without Apple angering the networks. EyeTV already is a DVR on a Mac, could it work on the iTV? If the iTV has a hard disk, I suspect it could. EyeTV can convert a recorded TV show to iPod format too... so it might do the same for iTV format and save some space. (If iTV can't handle EyeTV, I guess Elgato could write a simple application to remotely tell your Mac what to record, and show on your iTV).
I like the concept of a range of products (like the iPod).
Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.I've thought about this one for a while, and I do think it's important. Imagine Universal putting up their Universal "iTV channel (page)" which showcases all the Universal content - including NBC TV shows, USA network & Scifi channel, downloadable movie previews and TV ads, streaming special presentations, NBC News Video Podcasts, iTunes purchases, etc
I'd like to take the "virtual channel" a step further though. Could a scifi club setup a "scifi page" with links to shows from any channel - podcasts, previews, and links for watching broadcast (or download or record/DVR?), etc? Would I even care what channel a show was on if I knew that my city's scifi club had a great "virtual channel" that found everything I could access?
Same goes for any genre of course... if I'm a horse buff, I can get all the horse shows I want. If my local sports team has a iTV page ("virtual channel") then I don't care what channel their game is broadcast on - I just want to watch it (and download other interesting stuff). Etc
Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it quite that way but it makes great sense. Apple can make a deal for streaming news relatively cheaply (maybe free). Sport will be a premium (think of the standard costs for subscribing to sports on cable), but ESPN (via Disney) may be quite willing to do that, and so might others.
That would pretty well replace the need for traditional PayTV - though I still think there's a gap on rental (or subscription?) of TV shows & movies that I only want to watch ONCE.
I think iTV will include 'remote desktop' functionality - if you have a BT mouse and keyboard then you will be able to operate your Mac that is in another room via iTV.
Not sure if it's needed, but would be interesting. Especially a remote desktop that can run without the user on the computer knowing that you're connected (on a separate account).
"Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. "
Yeah, Apple is playing an interesting balancing game there....
?In regards to the iTV, will Apple maybe release different versions?
1. Just stream and 802.11n Hub Device
2. With HD and EyeTv.
3. Mac Mini/iTv Combo Media CenterPerhaps using a 3rd party like Elgato with EyeTV is the answer to making the iTV a DVR - without Apple angering the networks. EyeTV already is a DVR on a Mac, could it work on the iTV? If the iTV has a hard disk, I suspect it could. EyeTV can convert a recorded TV show to iPod format too... so it might do the same for iTV format and save some space. (If iTV can't handle EyeTV, I guess Elgato could write a simple application to remotely tell your Mac what to record, and show on your iTV).
I like the concept of a range of products (like the iPod).
Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.I've thought about this one for a while, and I do think it's important. Imagine Universal putting up their Universal "iTV channel (page)" which showcases all the Universal content - including NBC TV shows, USA network & Scifi channel, downloadable movie previews and TV ads, streaming special presentations, NBC News Video Podcasts, iTunes purchases, etc
I'd like to take the "virtual channel" a step further though. Could a scifi club setup a "scifi page" with links to shows from any channel - podcasts, previews, and links for watching broadcast (or download or record/DVR?), etc? Would I even care what channel a show was on if I knew that my city's scifi club had a great "virtual channel" that found everything I could access?
Same goes for any genre of course... if I'm a horse buff, I can get all the horse shows I want. If my local sports team has a iTV page ("virtual channel") then I don't care what channel their game is broadcast on - I just want to watch it (and download other interesting stuff). Etc
boncellis
Sep 6, 07:35 PM
There has to be something in the cards that Apple plans to implement that will trump Amazon. I just don't think it will be the iPod this time. What's in store, I wonder...
Outrun1986
Oct 12, 04:38 PM
Does anyone know where I can get a maroon case?
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
surroundfan
Sep 6, 09:24 AM
Sometimes it's about form over function. This is nothing new for Apple.
Well quite, but it's going to lock the Mac Mini into being a poor value proposition.
Well quite, but it's going to lock the Mac Mini into being a poor value proposition.
PBF
Apr 1, 11:54 AM
Already posted (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12299127&postcount=55) by another author.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a major PITA. Trying to delete folders is even worse than before with Launchpad crashing like crazy. But managed to do it anyway. Thanks for the tip. :D
Just out of curiosity, how do people even discover these things? Like having apps to wiggle first, then click and hold, then delete, etc. :confused:
---------------------------------------------------------
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a major PITA. Trying to delete folders is even worse than before with Launchpad crashing like crazy. But managed to do it anyway. Thanks for the tip. :D
Just out of curiosity, how do people even discover these things? Like having apps to wiggle first, then click and hold, then delete, etc. :confused:
wordoflife
Feb 28, 10:55 PM
First attempt to get everything in one shot.
Snip
Hardware in the sig
I think this is one of my most favorite overall setups in this thread.
Snip
Hardware in the sig
I think this is one of my most favorite overall setups in this thread.
Chef Medeski
Jul 13, 10:24 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
ryannel2003
Feb 22, 10:34 PM
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/ryannel2003/IMAG0168.jpg
My new addition, a white MacBook. It's a mid-2007 model I picked up for $400. Not a bad deal at all, considering many of these computers are still going for $550. Apple installed a new top case and display bezel for free, picked up a used Combo drive for $40 (old one was kaput) and a fresh install of Snow Leopard and I'm ready to go. Really enjoying it.
My new addition, a white MacBook. It's a mid-2007 model I picked up for $400. Not a bad deal at all, considering many of these computers are still going for $550. Apple installed a new top case and display bezel for free, picked up a used Combo drive for $40 (old one was kaput) and a fresh install of Snow Leopard and I'm ready to go. Really enjoying it.
iGav
Apr 10, 03:12 PM
Yes in terms of quick shifting a sequential gearbox is it.
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
quagmire
Feb 22, 08:04 PM
GM's early 1980s flirtation with diesels produced some disastrously bad designs that left a bad taste in the mouths of consumers and have been cited ever since as a factor, though it can be called into question whether this is really germane anymore. I think the continued impact of the Olds diesel debacle is overstated.
The lesson everyone learned that day is you don't make a diesel engine from a gasoline Small Block V8.
The lesson everyone learned that day is you don't make a diesel engine from a gasoline Small Block V8.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 6, 07:11 PM
Quality is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important to me, than price.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
Kingsly
Aug 6, 11:40 PM
More pix of the same... in case anyone cares!
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
1) WWDC2006!!
2) the now infamous banners�
3) me, with the now infamous baners�
4) Nifty computer bags� they are giving out
5) delicious gelato� :p
peharri
Jul 18, 09:32 AM
...but why on Earth would Jobs announce this at a developer's conference?
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
WWDC showcases the new hardware and software, but this isn't either, it's a product of little or no interest to developers. It's the wrong audience.
A more realistic possibility is a seperate, unrelated, keynote. The iTunes Music Store was announced at a special event, and I'd imagine any "movie download service" would be announced similarly.
I don't think the idea is impossible. I can see a $5 fixed fee thing working quite well, with $1 going to Apple to cover their operating costs. They can probably get an hour or so of moderate, better-then-VHS-resolution, quality for 100 megabytes if they choose a reasonable codec. The system probably fits Apple better than a selling system, where questions like "I can burn my music to CD, how come I can't burn my movies to DVD" will be asked. The major issue I can forsee though is that most of us want to watch movies on a large screen. Most Mac users don't really have anything that would work for that. Perhaps a little, cheap, Firewire widget that does TV out should be in Apple's future.
Synchromesh
Apr 10, 02:21 PM
My first car years ago was an automatic (had no choice). Since then all were manual and that's the only way to go imho. I do not and will not buy automatic car for a long time because I despise them. Nothing more pathetic than a sports car with an automatic. Honestly, any man not driving a family car/taxi/limo/truck that drives an automatic is not very manly in my eyes.
I remember going to Dominican Republic a few years back. We couldn't take a Jeep tour because it required 2 drivers the could handle a manual and I was the only one who could drive it out of 6 people (3 guys and 3 girls). Very sad.
I remember going to Dominican Republic a few years back. We couldn't take a Jeep tour because it required 2 drivers the could handle a manual and I was the only one who could drive it out of 6 people (3 guys and 3 girls). Very sad.
