cgc
Jul 15, 11:05 AM
:o well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
BlizzardBomb
Aug 27, 09:49 AM
Well for one thing, Apple doesn't pay street prices. iMacs will only have 2 cores until Kentsfield. So I think it's fair to expct aggressive Conroe speed in the iMac due to the 2 core limitation. iMacs need to be about the same speed as Mac Pros because they only have 2 cores.
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
brobert99
Apr 11, 01:02 PM
Whos to say Apple aren't leaking these rumors to try and put everyone off and try and prevent the same thing happening as happened with the iPhone 4?
sikkinixx
Aug 25, 07:28 PM
You should demand a replacement or refund
when i pick it up from the service center I had it at (its not an Apple store since we don't have them in Canada) I'm gonna ring up Apple and ask them wtf is going on. It never did it before I got the new Logic board but buddy at the place I took it said Apple said it wasn't a logic board problem.
when i pick it up from the service center I had it at (its not an Apple store since we don't have them in Canada) I'm gonna ring up Apple and ask them wtf is going on. It never did it before I got the new Logic board but buddy at the place I took it said Apple said it wasn't a logic board problem.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:22 AM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
Im not talking about performance, more about energy usage. I thought maybe they are using more cores as it is more energy efficient than using less cores or one big one. But as someone has pointed out its more likely a case of not having to squeeze more transistor thingies on a chip, they may as well just add another chip. :)
Im not talking about performance, more about energy usage. I thought maybe they are using more cores as it is more energy efficient than using less cores or one big one. But as someone has pointed out its more likely a case of not having to squeeze more transistor thingies on a chip, they may as well just add another chip. :)
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 12:10 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
heels98
Sep 19, 07:08 AM
Sure, some people will always have a need for the fastest computer in the world. Some will find themselves stressing over the slightest increase in processor performance, screen resolution, graphics memory, whatever. No one here doubts that. But most of those people spend much more time working than reading and posting on internet message boards. Professionals use the tools that for them get the job done. I feel that the main point of using the Mac is lost on most PC users, and especially on those that cry out for the absolute fastest turbo-charged, slick, top benchmark machines. Maybe our processors are "outdated," but Mac OS X is not, nor is the work that I see coming from Mac professionals inferior to those with faster computers. The fact that OS X makes doing our jobs more elegant and faster, is far more important than whose processor is the fastest, or as Freud would put, whose >>>> is bigger.:o
jljue
Apr 27, 08:44 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Law makers apparently have forgotten that they enacted a law requiring location ID on cell phones for emergency purposes--another indication that we have too many laws. :confused:
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Law makers apparently have forgotten that they enacted a law requiring location ID on cell phones for emergency purposes--another indication that we have too many laws. :confused:
powers74
Apr 10, 08:26 PM
When this hits it's going to piss a lot of people off.
wprowe
Apr 25, 04:14 PM
Doesn't anyone read their agreements anymore?
http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Look at the section on Location-based Services. You agree that Apple can track your specific location including GPS data.
Location-Based Services
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe �Find My iPhone� feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.
http://www.apple.com/privacy/
Look at the section on Location-based Services. You agree that Apple can track your specific location including GPS data.
Location-Based Services
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.
Some location-based services offered by Apple, such as the MobileMe �Find My iPhone� feature, require your personal information for the feature to work.
craig jones
Sep 13, 12:58 PM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 10:46 AM
but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
LightSpeed1
Mar 31, 02:40 PM
I knew it would happen eventually.
generik
Sep 18, 11:20 PM
For the love of God, please, learn to spell.
As I is naught en Amerikan canned sumone plz tell mi wen tanksgifting is? :p
As I is naught en Amerikan canned sumone plz tell mi wen tanksgifting is? :p
cult hero
Mar 26, 07:02 PM
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
There's no reason you can't do the exact same thing on a Mac. There are no shortage of virtual machine apps and no room to complain either seeing as VirtualBox is free (and Parallels is almost always available through some cheap MacUpdate bundle). Virtualize.
Rosetta needs to go away. Backward compatibility very often holds back forward progress (just look at how badly web technologies have been stifled by IE 6 even today). Widespread use of virtualization is making it more convenient to move forward and the average computer user simply doesn't need/use software that's a decade old.
There's no reason you can't do the exact same thing on a Mac. There are no shortage of virtual machine apps and no room to complain either seeing as VirtualBox is free (and Parallels is almost always available through some cheap MacUpdate bundle). Virtualize.
Rosetta needs to go away. Backward compatibility very often holds back forward progress (just look at how badly web technologies have been stifled by IE 6 even today). Widespread use of virtualization is making it more convenient to move forward and the average computer user simply doesn't need/use software that's a decade old.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 02:00 PM
I think you've misunderstood. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
mrkramer
Nov 28, 08:02 PM
I agree with the people here who have said that if this happens they would pirate all of the Music that they wanted from universal. If this happens and I buy a new iPod after that I will just go and pirate the Music that I want since the record labels have already been paid.
superleccy
Nov 28, 06:34 PM
No no no no no no NO. For all the reasons that everyone has already said.
:mad:
:mad:
kdarling
Mar 22, 07:38 PM
It runs Android. Pretty sure that's what he meant. So, Google, Android developers, Android marketplace.
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
jrhone
Aug 17, 01:20 AM
I AM SOOOO HAPPY I ORDERED THIS MACHINE!!! Ordered it yesterday, custom with 2gb RAM, got shipping confirmation today, I'll have it tomorrow!!! If its ALMOST as fast as a quad G5, it will be MUCH faster than my Rev A dual 2.0 G5....
justaregularjoe
Feb 28, 03:17 PM
Wow. I have never, ever in my life been so tempted to troll a MacRumors thread, nor have I ever been so infuriated by the use of a set of double quotation marks.
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
Gay marriage is not "marriage." Gay marriage is marriage.
Gay people are not "gay." They are gay.
So a few things:
1) Deal with it.
2) Gays are going to keep on getting married. Whether that means that they have to leave your ass-backwards country to come to a real civilization to do so, or write their own damn marriage contract and hire a rational person to perform the ceremony, they will.
3) As Lee said, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes (hell, anywhere, in fact) is their own damn business.
4) The claim by Bill McEnaney that gay people living together "should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another" is outrageous. (NB that this person had just said they must live "as siblings" which is weird, given that platonic love is only reservation from physical romance, not emotional romance...)
5) If you are going to pull the "protect the sanctity of marriage" card on me, think very hard about the institutions of divorce and annulment.
6) Many people (and many of the small number who claim to anyway) do not share your beliefs. Catholics have sex. In and out of marriage. *See Point One.*
7) Please try to be just a smidgen more cultured in your attitudes, and a little less abrasive in sharing them. Though I try to reserve judgment, I am currently not alone in thinking that you are completely insane just by your posts in this thread.
I feel better now. :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 06:58 PM
What I'm asking is, does it justify the action that we're taking?
That, I'm not sold on.
I'm willing to accept the current level of US involvment, provided it is short-term and really is part of a broader coalition with UN backing. Whether it turns out to be justified depends on subsequent events.
That, I'm not sold on.
I'm willing to accept the current level of US involvment, provided it is short-term and really is part of a broader coalition with UN backing. Whether it turns out to be justified depends on subsequent events.
840quadra
Apr 25, 03:42 PM
See, I have a very different opinion.
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.
That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
