marcosscriven
May 6, 02:46 AM
Fake. Yet another chipset change would lead to many unnecessary problems.
Like some others have said - Apple, being so wonderfully customer-experience focussed, wouldn't do this is there weren't some tangible benefits that outweighed the downsides.
Yes, this could be a 'fake' rumour, but it's certainly well within the realms of possibility.
As I mentioned above, the biggest hurdle would be x86 emulation. I would suspect ARM are looking at that closely, and would have some kind of on-chip functionality to speed up that process.
Like some others have said - Apple, being so wonderfully customer-experience focussed, wouldn't do this is there weren't some tangible benefits that outweighed the downsides.
Yes, this could be a 'fake' rumour, but it's certainly well within the realms of possibility.
As I mentioned above, the biggest hurdle would be x86 emulation. I would suspect ARM are looking at that closely, and would have some kind of on-chip functionality to speed up that process.
MacinDoc
Jul 23, 02:00 AM
i think the macbook should get the chips with 2 MB of shared L2 cache,
and the pro's get the chips with 4 MB of shared L2 cache
There will be then a difference between the two models (is having 4mb of shared L2 cache a lot better than 2mb? i have no idea but i presume it is)
or perhaps just let the blackbook have the 2.0ghz chip with 4mb of shared l2 cache to compensate for them charging for colour
...only if the Macbooks also get a price drop, because the Core Duo chips should get a price drop, if Intel even keeps making them.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).
and the pro's get the chips with 4 MB of shared L2 cache
There will be then a difference between the two models (is having 4mb of shared L2 cache a lot better than 2mb? i have no idea but i presume it is)
or perhaps just let the blackbook have the 2.0ghz chip with 4mb of shared l2 cache to compensate for them charging for colour
...only if the Macbooks also get a price drop, because the Core Duo chips should get a price drop, if Intel even keeps making them.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).
Eriden
Sep 16, 06:00 PM
If they souped up a 13.3" MB enclosure, wouldn't it require a serious overhaul of the appropriate internals, especially ditching the integrated graphics for a dedicated solution? (Not that Jonathan Ive & Co would have much of a problem making it happen.) Before I went to the recently opened Apple Store in Norfolk, VA, I might have considered a 13.3" MBP. But after having played around with the 17"... I'm in love. When Tuesday cometh, I'll be ordering a 17" MBP... merom or yonah. From all the shipping delays, merom is looking more hopeful all the time!
PeterQVenkman
Apr 18, 02:55 PM
Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Robotic_Richard_Simmons.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Robotic_Richard_Simmons.png
mwayne85
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
Good observation, but as others have said, this won't happen anytime soon. I guessing we'll see a resolution bump in the iPad before we see it in Macs.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 7, 01:21 PM
Apple is anticompetitive and should be shut down. By producing products customers want when others in the industry can't, they are forcing the competition out of business.
If Apple is not shut down, they should be forced to only sell the products designed by RIM and Google, while Google and Rim can build any Apple product they want. Apple also needs to be forced to fire their QC department. While they are at it, they might want to replace their marketing department with a bunch of rabid chimps. They might also be forced to purchase advertising for RIM.
Apples cash reserves also give them an unfair advantage. Perhaps they should give half their money to RIM. Perhaps Apple should design and build the products and sell them, however, RIM and Google would get the money.
LMAO
http://www.babynewsnow.com/images/baby_crying.jpg
If Apple is not shut down, they should be forced to only sell the products designed by RIM and Google, while Google and Rim can build any Apple product they want. Apple also needs to be forced to fire their QC department. While they are at it, they might want to replace their marketing department with a bunch of rabid chimps. They might also be forced to purchase advertising for RIM.
Apples cash reserves also give them an unfair advantage. Perhaps they should give half their money to RIM. Perhaps Apple should design and build the products and sell them, however, RIM and Google would get the money.
LMAO
http://www.babynewsnow.com/images/baby_crying.jpg
Rodimus Prime
Apr 26, 03:20 PM
How is that not relevant??? What is the point of showing market share then? No really, what is the point? Doesn't it factor heavily into what market a company wants to develop software for? Since the same apps run on all those Apple devices then why would you not want to include those?
you forget a lot of apps really are designed for things that will always be with you and need data connection so the phone is more relevent. You forget that a lot of people own both iPod and an Android phone.
I will be one of those people soon. My iPod will be reduced complete down to just a music devices. I do not use the apps much on it for killing time as I do not always have it with me but my phone I will have with it
you forget a lot of apps really are designed for things that will always be with you and need data connection so the phone is more relevent. You forget that a lot of people own both iPod and an Android phone.
I will be one of those people soon. My iPod will be reduced complete down to just a music devices. I do not use the apps much on it for killing time as I do not always have it with me but my phone I will have with it
stridle
Dec 4, 07:00 PM
I've been looking all over the internet and the stores do not carry them either. Frankly this is BS, first TOMTOM pushes the date of release by over a month and then they cannot even keep up with supply.
SBlue1
Mar 29, 07:12 PM
thanks but i dont need this. :rolleyes:
trip1ex
Mar 29, 01:00 PM
Not enough for my collection.
And never felt like I had to download music at work and anywhere else.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but ...
I do like the idea of not having to back stuff up in case I lose it to a hard drive crash.
5gb ain't enough to cover my collection however.
And never felt like I had to download music at work and anywhere else.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but ...
I do like the idea of not having to back stuff up in case I lose it to a hard drive crash.
5gb ain't enough to cover my collection however.
macindork
Apr 22, 10:24 AM
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
batchtaster
Apr 21, 04:00 PM
Generally there is little NEED to use Macs in a server environment as its pretty much always possible to do it with Linux, and some cases Windows. I'm not denying that it has its uses, but the size of this market has made it impractical.
How is the so-called "Pro" market larger or more worthy than the IT/enterprise market? "Pro" users didn't sustain the Xserve sales any more than enterprise. Xserve was not just a server box.
I manage 600+ Mac workstations, and I can do so from 2 or 3 Mac OS X Servers, using services which are either not available or impractical to build and maintain on Linux and Windows, such as NetBoot, MCX and Apple SUS. Our "Pro" users would be single digits.
How is the so-called "Pro" market larger or more worthy than the IT/enterprise market? "Pro" users didn't sustain the Xserve sales any more than enterprise. Xserve was not just a server box.
I manage 600+ Mac workstations, and I can do so from 2 or 3 Mac OS X Servers, using services which are either not available or impractical to build and maintain on Linux and Windows, such as NetBoot, MCX and Apple SUS. Our "Pro" users would be single digits.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 5, 03:05 PM
There should be an app to regain control of the breaks in a toyota.
A panic button app.
A panic button app.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 06:55 PM
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
No one is saying photos should be changed to vector based art. Looking at my dock right now, nothing is a photo, it's all cartoony images that when converted to vector art (something again, KDE did 10 years ago) isn't much bigger than JPEGs or PNGs when saved as SVG.
Also, another big plus, SVG being text based XML compresses very, very well (don't forget JPEG and PNG are compressed formats). For icons, it made sense to move to SVG 10 years ago. Apple is late to the game in this regard.
For wallpapers, some make sense (more cartoony images or things like the aurora wallpapers of past OS X releases) and some don't. I'm not arguing Apple drop support for pixel based formats, but rather that they add support for vector based art and use it as much as possible where it makes sense.
If a few unpaid Linux hackers can make it work, why can't Apple ?
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them...
In this case, last generation cards like the AMD Radeon 6000 that are about to show up in Macs (finally!) are quite capable of outputting the 3200x2000 resolutions which are being talked about here with the mount Fuji background. They have the RAM, the output bandwidth and the processing power.
No one is saying photos should be changed to vector based art. Looking at my dock right now, nothing is a photo, it's all cartoony images that when converted to vector art (something again, KDE did 10 years ago) isn't much bigger than JPEGs or PNGs when saved as SVG.
Also, another big plus, SVG being text based XML compresses very, very well (don't forget JPEG and PNG are compressed formats). For icons, it made sense to move to SVG 10 years ago. Apple is late to the game in this regard.
For wallpapers, some make sense (more cartoony images or things like the aurora wallpapers of past OS X releases) and some don't. I'm not arguing Apple drop support for pixel based formats, but rather that they add support for vector based art and use it as much as possible where it makes sense.
If a few unpaid Linux hackers can make it work, why can't Apple ?
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them...
In this case, last generation cards like the AMD Radeon 6000 that are about to show up in Macs (finally!) are quite capable of outputting the 3200x2000 resolutions which are being talked about here with the mount Fuji background. They have the RAM, the output bandwidth and the processing power.
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:22 PM
:confused: ALready has Friend Jailbreaking is already legal
So you used the terms "I will revel in the day" and "yes it will happen" for something that's already happened?
Uh...ok. :confused:
Based on your future tense I assumed you meant the day when Apple will actually endorse Jailbreaking directly, not the day they'd be forced to simply allow it. Apparently you were using future tense to talk about past events, so you can see how I got confused.
So you used the terms "I will revel in the day" and "yes it will happen" for something that's already happened?
Uh...ok. :confused:
Based on your future tense I assumed you meant the day when Apple will actually endorse Jailbreaking directly, not the day they'd be forced to simply allow it. Apparently you were using future tense to talk about past events, so you can see how I got confused.
andiwm2003
Jul 21, 03:06 PM
.........................................3) The MacBook won't see an upgrade for a few months - maybe a speed bump in September, but otherwise, I wouldn't expect Core2Duo in it by maybe December or MWSF '07. Till then, your MB will be perfectly fine.
the macbook was released mid may 06. so i would expect some update in october given the fast processor updates.
certainly a good time for mac users.:)
the macbook was released mid may 06. so i would expect some update in october given the fast processor updates.
certainly a good time for mac users.:)
andiwm2003
Aug 7, 02:10 PM
Pretty impressive specs, aside from the fairly hopeless 7300GT graphics card.
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
wow, it took a full three (3) posts till somebody complains about the GPU. that seems to be the only constant thing that survived even the intel transition.:D
The internal design - the hard drive slots and the memory - seems particularly well thought out.
The Mac Pro will be my next computer. Time to configure one and see how much it would cost.
wow, it took a full three (3) posts till somebody complains about the GPU. that seems to be the only constant thing that survived even the intel transition.:D
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 23, 04:36 PM
Very good news!:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::D:D:D:D:D:D
gerrycurl
Aug 7, 09:49 PM
actually crucial already has your ram, apple's basically using an intel 5000 motherboard:
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Intel%2B+Motherboards&mfr=Intel&tabid=AM&model=S5000XVN&submit=Go
I was thinking this myself until I saw it was 4 x 512mb sticks. That just sucks. If it was 2 x 1gb sticks I would say not bad but its not good. Give crucial a few days to look into it. They guarantee compatibility, if it doesn't work you can return it. I am holding out for third party ram and staying with the 1gb base. Thank god its 1gb and not 512mb they usually throw at us.
Sorry to cast a shadow over your decision but hey if you can afford it who cares right.
http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Intel%2B+Motherboards&mfr=Intel&tabid=AM&model=S5000XVN&submit=Go
I was thinking this myself until I saw it was 4 x 512mb sticks. That just sucks. If it was 2 x 1gb sticks I would say not bad but its not good. Give crucial a few days to look into it. They guarantee compatibility, if it doesn't work you can return it. I am holding out for third party ram and staying with the 1gb base. Thank god its 1gb and not 512mb they usually throw at us.
Sorry to cast a shadow over your decision but hey if you can afford it who cares right.
iMacZealot
Aug 4, 11:40 PM
If Im not mistaken every KeyNote from Steve Jobs, whether at WWDC, MacWorld or any other event from Apple has been on tuesdays. Why is this one DIFFERENT. Could we see a Movie Store on Tuesday ???????
No. Unlike your last five posts (which have all said the same things, how original) have said, most, if not all keynotes are on Mondays, with the exception of special events typically releasing new iPods. Ever thought of checking something first? it's an amazing thing to do that will prevent you from making the same embarrasing mistake five times.
No. Unlike your last five posts (which have all said the same things, how original) have said, most, if not all keynotes are on Mondays, with the exception of special events typically releasing new iPods. Ever thought of checking something first? it's an amazing thing to do that will prevent you from making the same embarrasing mistake five times.
wangagat
Jul 21, 03:24 PM
something to remember about product update cycles:
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
rdrr
Sep 15, 05:05 PM
According to this review, it runs measurably (not necessarily significantly) cooler with longer battery life, etc.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288
And according to Steve, when he announed the Intel switch, one of the reasons was the G5 couldn't fit into the PB because of heat. Well the MBP runs hotter than my G4 PB. I'll believe it once I feel them at the store.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288
And according to Steve, when he announed the Intel switch, one of the reasons was the G5 couldn't fit into the PB because of heat. Well the MBP runs hotter than my G4 PB. I'll believe it once I feel them at the store.
marksman
Apr 20, 01:11 AM
If you can have a bigger screen without a physically larger device size and weight, then yes, it is necessarily better.
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Chundles
Sep 10, 11:06 PM
I can't get to excited about this, it will take me 10 hours to download 2GB :eek:
10 hours? Luxury. I dream of being able to download 2GB in 10 hours.
It'll take me over 4 days.
10 hours? Luxury. I dream of being able to download 2GB in 10 hours.
It'll take me over 4 days.