lorductape
Jan 12, 10:19 AM
if you look at the codenames for many products, and I'm talking about way back to the apple II days, air seems more like a codename for a product than the product name itself. Maybe they will announce something like they did with the "iTV" and refer to it by its codename, because they don't have a name yet and it's not even out for official release yet.
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".
kelving525
Sep 20, 11:10 PM
What was the checkout like? Did you have to go through their checkout? I'm always suspicious of those places, and am concerned that they're using unsecured special checkouts and/or are stealing identities. And I'm not usually a suspicious person.
But it's hard to resist for $1.00. The Griffin Reveal I bought was a ridiculous $25.
Do these fit on the cases snugly or are they kind of loose?
Yea, it was through paypal, so I'm pretty sure it's safe. Wired transfer on the other hand can be shady. It fits pretty well actually, you would've thought they were loose! But they are not bad for $1!
But it's hard to resist for $1.00. The Griffin Reveal I bought was a ridiculous $25.
Do these fit on the cases snugly or are they kind of loose?
Yea, it was through paypal, so I'm pretty sure it's safe. Wired transfer on the other hand can be shady. It fits pretty well actually, you would've thought they were loose! But they are not bad for $1!
Small White Car
Apr 12, 10:17 PM
I thought I heard him say that it was 'shipping' in June, in addition to the App Store. Can anyone else verify this?
Final Cut is.
We were talking about Aperture, the photo program.
Final Cut is.
We were talking about Aperture, the photo program.
sineplex
Sep 18, 05:51 PM
I got the silicone case today, but then I also decided to go with Belkin Grip Vue.
Silicone case - quite nice and fits well with the iPod Touch.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4991075021_c700b1aec9_z.jpg
Is that an actual Belkin Silicon case ?
Silicone case - quite nice and fits well with the iPod Touch.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/4991075021_c700b1aec9_z.jpg
Is that an actual Belkin Silicon case ?
MacSA
Aug 29, 11:55 AM
I assume that was *before* the mac pro shipped? I'd expect dropping sales before that, but you're not saying they've continued to drop after the Pro release? And are you including iMacs as part of desktop machines?
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
Apple posted revenue of $4.37 billion and a net quarterly profit of $472 million or $.54 per diluted share. For reference, the year-ago quarter brought in $3.53 billion in revenue, net profit of $320 million or $.37 per diluted share.
Analysts expected Apple to earn 44 cents per share, on average, within a range of 40 cents to 49 cents, on revenue of $3.68 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.
Apple shipped 1,327,000 Macintosh computers and 8,111,000 iPods during this quarter which represents a 12% growth in Macs and 32% growth in iPods year-over-year.
- 75% of Macs sold during the quarter used Intel processors.
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
- International sales accounted for 39 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
- iPod continued to earn a US market share of over 75 percent
- Desktops: 529,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 798,000, up 60% from previous quarter
- iPods: 8,526,000
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
Apple posted revenue of $4.37 billion and a net quarterly profit of $472 million or $.54 per diluted share. For reference, the year-ago quarter brought in $3.53 billion in revenue, net profit of $320 million or $.37 per diluted share.
Analysts expected Apple to earn 44 cents per share, on average, within a range of 40 cents to 49 cents, on revenue of $3.68 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.
Apple shipped 1,327,000 Macintosh computers and 8,111,000 iPods during this quarter which represents a 12% growth in Macs and 32% growth in iPods year-over-year.
- 75% of Macs sold during the quarter used Intel processors.
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
- International sales accounted for 39 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
- iPod continued to earn a US market share of over 75 percent
- Desktops: 529,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 798,000, up 60% from previous quarter
- iPods: 8,526,000
dont24
Apr 19, 05:26 PM
Would be nice to see a 24" iMac back in the line up. 27" is just too big for my space.
I may look into a new mini with a 24" monitor, to replace my 2007 24" 2.4 iMac.
I may look into a new mini with a 24" monitor, to replace my 2007 24" 2.4 iMac.
kadajawi
Aug 30, 04:06 PM
Your prices really hurt. A very basic Core Solo is around $750 here.
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
Hattig
Nov 27, 02:32 PM
Maybe they should drop the price of the 20" Cinema Display to something more reasonable, such as $499 - $699 is far too much. In the UK it is �529!
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
Dunepilot
Sep 6, 10:16 AM
The Superdrive option in the base model has gone.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
There's some truth in this. Apple's approach to optical drives has been haphazard for some time now.
Earth to Apple: a Combo drive in 2002 was state of the art. A Combo drive in 2004 was a reasonably priced alternative to a DVD burner. A Combo drive in 2005 was an acceptable means of marketing differentiation. A Combo drive in 2006 (particularly with no option to buy a DVD burner) is an embarrassment...
There's some truth in this. Apple's approach to optical drives has been haphazard for some time now.
Compile 'em all
Jan 5, 08:22 AM
For a word processor, I'm using Open Office...I'm pretty happy with it except that it uses X11.
Use NeoOffice. It is a port of OpenOffice and uses Aqua instead of X11.
Use NeoOffice. It is a port of OpenOffice and uses Aqua instead of X11.
eric55lv
Jan 12, 05:53 PM
Intriguing.
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
It's certainly something different from the obvious nano/mini/thin branding that people are expecting.
it might be because it so light
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
It's certainly something different from the obvious nano/mini/thin branding that people are expecting.
it might be because it so light
Warbrain
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Looks like I'll be taking my lunch break at 1PM tomorrow:p
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
neoelectronaut
Jan 18, 01:41 PM
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6843/photojan1812328pm.jpg
New 2011 Ford Fusion SE which is replacing my 2007 Ford Fusion SE which was the victim of an unfortunate accident.
Edit: I need to pick up a sunshade before Summer rolls around.
New 2011 Ford Fusion SE which is replacing my 2007 Ford Fusion SE which was the victim of an unfortunate accident.
Edit: I need to pick up a sunshade before Summer rolls around.
wordoflife
Nov 26, 05:44 PM
Swatch New Gent "black Rebel"
http://www.kstreetwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Swatch-New-Gent-Watches-03.jpeg
Where did you buy that watch and for how much? I really like it :o
__________________________________________________________
Last purchase:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/candycane-report/5.jpg
http://www.kstreetwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Swatch-New-Gent-Watches-03.jpeg
Where did you buy that watch and for how much? I really like it :o
__________________________________________________________
Last purchase:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/candycane-report/5.jpg
triceretops
Apr 12, 10:18 PM
Is there anybody actually filming this? From what the tweets are describing, the audience are loving it, i'd like to see this keynote.
Everybody there is an editor. They don't know how to use a camera.:p
Everybody there is an editor. They don't know how to use a camera.:p
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
silbeej
Jan 23, 04:28 PM
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
Um...42k? Thats extremely low for such a reliable car. Figured that would have 242k or 342k on it.
Um...42k? Thats extremely low for such a reliable car. Figured that would have 242k or 342k on it.
Keebler
Jul 18, 08:03 AM
i'm not too surprised if this holds true.
1. renting a movie make sense if it's a good quality. you don't buy the movie when you go to a cinema. for someone like myself, a stay-at-home Dad, i often want to hit the theatre, but with 2 kiddies and a home business....not alot of time....but i could dload a movie while the kids are eating lunch/having a nap and then watch it later :) hey, it just bleeds further into developing an impatient society :) ie. . I want it NOW :)
2. of course the movie execs don't want ppl to buy a dloaded movie b/c dvd sales are insanely massive. dvd sales/marketing are now part of the ENTIRE movie process starting at pre-production. they want us to spend the $20 - $30 per dvd and higher for box sets
3. I believe Jobs doesn't want to push the movie execs. they see how the music biz just fought with jobs over trying to increase prices. they want to hold the upper hand imho.
4. i'm joining the whining about not releasing tv shows/movies in other countries. i'm in canada and would love to dload tv shows which i don't get a chance to see. i understand there are legal implications, but i would think that a lg amount of the groundwork would have been done with the music? (I know there may be different issues, but it's driving me nuts :)
Either way, i hope apple does something. they need to lead the charge. people want it.
cheers,
keebler
1. renting a movie make sense if it's a good quality. you don't buy the movie when you go to a cinema. for someone like myself, a stay-at-home Dad, i often want to hit the theatre, but with 2 kiddies and a home business....not alot of time....but i could dload a movie while the kids are eating lunch/having a nap and then watch it later :) hey, it just bleeds further into developing an impatient society :) ie. . I want it NOW :)
2. of course the movie execs don't want ppl to buy a dloaded movie b/c dvd sales are insanely massive. dvd sales/marketing are now part of the ENTIRE movie process starting at pre-production. they want us to spend the $20 - $30 per dvd and higher for box sets
3. I believe Jobs doesn't want to push the movie execs. they see how the music biz just fought with jobs over trying to increase prices. they want to hold the upper hand imho.
4. i'm joining the whining about not releasing tv shows/movies in other countries. i'm in canada and would love to dload tv shows which i don't get a chance to see. i understand there are legal implications, but i would think that a lg amount of the groundwork would have been done with the music? (I know there may be different issues, but it's driving me nuts :)
Either way, i hope apple does something. they need to lead the charge. people want it.
cheers,
keebler
guez
Sep 7, 03:37 PM
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
thejadedmonkey
Aug 16, 07:47 AM
Well, it sounds like the next iPod's going to be a rather large update if half the rumors are to be believed.
bcharna
Aug 6, 11:21 PM
I can't sleep.
MacRumors, stop making me dwell on this!!
PS, is anyone here waiting for Mac support for the Slingbox? Thats pissing me off too!
MacRumors, stop making me dwell on this!!
PS, is anyone here waiting for Mac support for the Slingbox? Thats pissing me off too!
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:23 AM
If we are gonna base the present of potential then logically you should be going for Holographic disc since they have potential to bring out a single layer 300 gb disc at the end of 2006...
Or is that what you meant by HVD?
UMM... of course you should base desicions on the potential of a system, of course within a timeframe. I mean the potential of my Powerbook isn't nearly as great as a MacBook Pro, so that why I wouldn't buy a Powerbook right now ;) . Its not based on cost, cause I can get a powerbook at much less, but just the fact that while the MacBook is only faster for universal apps, so really its mostly slower due to rosetta, and it has no other upgrades..... well there seems to be little advantage to pick it .... OHH WAIT it has the potential to be much faster in the future.... I forgot about that...
Or is that what you meant by HVD?
UMM... of course you should base desicions on the potential of a system, of course within a timeframe. I mean the potential of my Powerbook isn't nearly as great as a MacBook Pro, so that why I wouldn't buy a Powerbook right now ;) . Its not based on cost, cause I can get a powerbook at much less, but just the fact that while the MacBook is only faster for universal apps, so really its mostly slower due to rosetta, and it has no other upgrades..... well there seems to be little advantage to pick it .... OHH WAIT it has the potential to be much faster in the future.... I forgot about that...
Multimedia
Aug 25, 03:27 AM
I dont think they will go core 2 yet, the mini is entry level, they will rather upgrade the macbook and the imac first before they go for the core 2 in the mini. That sayd, why not keep the solo and lower the price (3 mini models maybe), for many the reason why they arent switching is because of price, and with a lot of people only doing light office/home stuff the solo is good enough.
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p