notjustjay
Apr 7, 11:21 AM
I can't believe the number of positive votes and gloaters we have in here. Aren't you the same people who are outraged because you can't get your iPad 2 because the scalpers bought them all up?
Look, if Apple dominates the tablet market because the iPad is genuinely better than the other guy's tablet (and don't get me wrong, I think it is) and that causes Apple's sales to far eclipse everyone else, then GREAT! People vote with their wallets and the dominant winner is clear. But if Apple becomes the dominant player because, heck, they're so big that they can simply BUY THEIR WAY to the top, then that's not really fair for anybody, is it?
Isn't that how Windows got their market share? Because Microsoft got so big that they could start dictating deals to the PC makers? Didn't we bash them for "forcing" Windows on consumers, not giving them a fair choice?
Look, if Apple dominates the tablet market because the iPad is genuinely better than the other guy's tablet (and don't get me wrong, I think it is) and that causes Apple's sales to far eclipse everyone else, then GREAT! People vote with their wallets and the dominant winner is clear. But if Apple becomes the dominant player because, heck, they're so big that they can simply BUY THEIR WAY to the top, then that's not really fair for anybody, is it?
Isn't that how Windows got their market share? Because Microsoft got so big that they could start dictating deals to the PC makers? Didn't we bash them for "forcing" Windows on consumers, not giving them a fair choice?
don.keishlong
Apr 5, 09:45 PM
Hmmm... I think I'll go jailbreak my iPod touch now.
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
You're an idiot
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
You're an idiot
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
JesterJJZ
Apr 22, 12:00 AM
During the Sundance Film Festival which happens here, we were ingesting nearly 12 hours of footage and producing 6 hours of content (live shows, pre-taped shows, packaged shows) a day.
Not to sound harsh or anything, but maybe you guys should be charging more for your services. The way you described how much work you guys are doing over there, you should be able to afford a new MacPro for everyone there...and maybe a couple grip trucks...
Not to sound harsh or anything, but maybe you guys should be charging more for your services. The way you described how much work you guys are doing over there, you should be able to afford a new MacPro for everyone there...and maybe a couple grip trucks...
Chundles
Sep 10, 11:22 PM
Mine connection would take around 14 hours, but we have adsl 2+ now which is up to 24mb/sec. Can't wait to upgrade :cool:
This movie store is all exciting and all, but with out world stores, it will be the US who will be enjoying it :(
Yep, downloadable TV shows, movies for purchase or rent, iPhoto photobooks/prints/calendars/cards etc.
Who gives a rat's? Not me because we can't use any of them.
This movie store is all exciting and all, but with out world stores, it will be the US who will be enjoying it :(
Yep, downloadable TV shows, movies for purchase or rent, iPhoto photobooks/prints/calendars/cards etc.
Who gives a rat's? Not me because we can't use any of them.
MikeDTyke
Mar 28, 10:00 AM
Cue, End of the world. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! ;)
425
Mar 27, 03:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I just forked over 750 dollars for an ipad 2 and ipad 3 is coming out? Ouch!!! I already want it.
No. I wish this stupid rumor would die. I guarantee you the iPad 3 does not arrive until 2012. Most likely March
I just forked over 750 dollars for an ipad 2 and ipad 3 is coming out? Ouch!!! I already want it.
No. I wish this stupid rumor would die. I guarantee you the iPad 3 does not arrive until 2012. Most likely March
Eorlas
Apr 5, 02:49 PM
I'd bet that Steve Jobs has a jailbroken iPhone with biteSMS because he knows how awesome it is to be able to quick send/reply...
pdpardue
Apr 23, 04:34 PM
anyone remember when screens were 1024x768? who would have imagined that now icons are 1024x1024... that icon is bigger than the total resolution of my first computer's display
MacBookPro13"
Mar 31, 05:17 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Mac OS X Pus*y ;)
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Mac OS X Pus*y ;)
Jazwire
Apr 24, 07:47 PM
Please give us retina displays or at least an option for the next Imac refresh.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 23, 05:59 AM
I posted this question in another thread but no one has answered it, so... I was wondering what thoughts you had on this:
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.
digitalbiker
Aug 11, 03:55 PM
The MBP will be done on a random day. Its a 'Pro' model andParis is more for the consumer goods like iMacs and iPods etc
iPod announcements are out for Paris. There is no way Apple is going to announce anything related to itunes, ipods, or Apple Music Store in Paris, given all the law suits and Frances' stand on Apple's DRM.
PB have been updated at Paris Expo in the past.
Therefore I see MacPro, MacMini, and iMac announcements at Paris.
iPod, iTunes, iphone announcements at a special event in October.
MacBook, MacPro, Leopard preview and date, etc. at MW 2007.
:D
iPod announcements are out for Paris. There is no way Apple is going to announce anything related to itunes, ipods, or Apple Music Store in Paris, given all the law suits and Frances' stand on Apple's DRM.
PB have been updated at Paris Expo in the past.
Therefore I see MacPro, MacMini, and iMac announcements at Paris.
iPod, iTunes, iphone announcements at a special event in October.
MacBook, MacPro, Leopard preview and date, etc. at MW 2007.
:D
WestonHarvey1
Mar 31, 09:33 AM
Sabertooth.
That sounds more like a retconned name for Macintosh System Software 1.0.
That sounds more like a retconned name for Macintosh System Software 1.0.
KingYaba
Aug 11, 04:55 PM
IT's official, I am waiting untill next month.
ravenvii
May 3, 01:44 PM
Okay, but we start with only 1 HP. So, a number of us could die in the first round?
The villain's level doesn't matter, right? He either kills all or he loses.
If you're extremely unlucky, yes, but it'll be nearly impossible (I won't allow the villain to buy a hulking level 10 dragon for 1 point, for instance ;)).
The villain's level only matters once the heroes reaches, and battles, the villain. The villain is the "final boss" of the game.
The villain's level doesn't matter, right? He either kills all or he loses.
If you're extremely unlucky, yes, but it'll be nearly impossible (I won't allow the villain to buy a hulking level 10 dragon for 1 point, for instance ;)).
The villain's level only matters once the heroes reaches, and battles, the villain. The villain is the "final boss" of the game.
xbuddycorex
May 3, 03:03 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Working in medicine in the US, this us the bane of my existence.
Working in medicine in the US, this us the bane of my existence.
complexcommunic
May 7, 05:20 PM
This would be really awesome. I've always been intrigued by mobileme but turned away by its price tag
Dr_Maybe
Aug 2, 03:38 PM
In Apple will withdraw the iPod. Nobody needs it any more. Nobody wants it. A huge, useless, glowing apple will be all anyone will want.
Funny :D
<confused applause />
Funny :D
<confused applause />
vwsoul
Sep 16, 12:52 PM
I am curious tho, if people placed their orders now and lets say the new mbp comes out on the 19th, then how will they adjust the specs and price for the one you ordered and the one that ships? Will they contact you ahead of time or just send you a similar spec based on your price?
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
Plutonius
May 3, 12:12 PM
Yep I'll play
Moyank24
May 5, 01:52 AM
I'm going to go wayyyyyy out on the proverbial limb here and suggest that since mscriv knows the full map at the outset of the game, that he's going to pretty much lay traps or monsters in each or every other room we enter- especially the ones where there is only one door for us to enter into another room.
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
The only trepidation I have against splitting up so soon is that we'll be weaker apart. But, on the other hand the longer we wait the chances of the monsters being stronger are better.
And my darling husband, I'm just in it for the alimony. ;)
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
The only trepidation I have against splitting up so soon is that we'll be weaker apart. But, on the other hand the longer we wait the chances of the monsters being stronger are better.
And my darling husband, I'm just in it for the alimony. ;)
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
I could see iAd playing a role in this decision. Apple
pays for it through ads. Makes sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Steve Jobs said iAd was a way to have Free or low cost apps on the app store and still get the developer a little compensation.
How does that translate into a closed cloud service like Mobileme? Apple isn't trying to be Cupertino Google here.
I could see iAd playing a role in this decision. Apple
pays for it through ads. Makes sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Steve Jobs said iAd was a way to have Free or low cost apps on the app store and still get the developer a little compensation.
How does that translate into a closed cloud service like Mobileme? Apple isn't trying to be Cupertino Google here.
dj2mc
Nov 26, 01:12 PM
To lay down some feedback of my own, I have used Sophos for a while and I am very pleased with it. I had Clam XAV for the longest time, and to be honest I never felt very safe w/ it because it never had the image of it was even scanning legibly, sometimes it would pop up with scan errors, corrupt updates, etc. The list goes on... Sophos is a prime example of an AV that has characteristics that others are missing. It's stable, fast, reliable and ultimately gives you the best protection because it's always scanning, and always searching the file you open each time. What more can you want?
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
No comments:
Post a Comment