NJRonbo
Jun 15, 06:30 AM
I have no choice but to go with Radio Shack.
Despite what was told to all of us in advance
based on upgrade eligibility after December 2010,
a new iPhone will cost me $600.
It comes with no commitment which is fine. I
will get the new iPhone next year at a discount.
So, I need that $247 store credit to bring the
pricing down.
I will go to the store today. The kid there knows
me by now and I think he will help me get the
phone on opening day.
Still grumbling about this whole ordeal plus the
fact that NOBODY is getting white phones.
Despite what was told to all of us in advance
based on upgrade eligibility after December 2010,
a new iPhone will cost me $600.
It comes with no commitment which is fine. I
will get the new iPhone next year at a discount.
So, I need that $247 store credit to bring the
pricing down.
I will go to the store today. The kid there knows
me by now and I think he will help me get the
phone on opening day.
Still grumbling about this whole ordeal plus the
fact that NOBODY is getting white phones.
G4er?
Apr 25, 01:41 PM
But the government allows automakers to install black boxes in your car. In which the data could potentially be used against you.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:08 PM
For those of my friends who are techy and into computers/technology, the XOOM is much more enjoyable.
Riiight. Because when you're "techie" and "into computers," you want a native app catalog of 30?
How many of your "friends" actually have a XOOM?
This is why having competition is good.
Can we just assume "competition is good" so people don't have to repeat it on every single thread?
If Jobs had his way we'd all be stuck with iPads whether we wanted them or not.
And if Motorola had its way, we'd all be stuck with XOOMS whether we wanted them or not, and if Samsung had its way, we'd all be stuck with Galaxy Tabs whether we wanted them or not, and if Microsoft had its way, we'd all be stuck with whatever crappy Win7 tablet is out there whether we wanted them or not. Welcome to...business!
Your attempt to show Jobs in a bad light in this regard is absurd.
Riiight. Because when you're "techie" and "into computers," you want a native app catalog of 30?
How many of your "friends" actually have a XOOM?
This is why having competition is good.
Can we just assume "competition is good" so people don't have to repeat it on every single thread?
If Jobs had his way we'd all be stuck with iPads whether we wanted them or not.
And if Motorola had its way, we'd all be stuck with XOOMS whether we wanted them or not, and if Samsung had its way, we'd all be stuck with Galaxy Tabs whether we wanted them or not, and if Microsoft had its way, we'd all be stuck with whatever crappy Win7 tablet is out there whether we wanted them or not. Welcome to...business!
Your attempt to show Jobs in a bad light in this regard is absurd.
severe
Jun 21, 11:49 PM
...I may be an idiot for trusting radioshack but I want to trade in my 3GS so... I'll be waiting outside of my radioshack atleast an hour before they open on Thursday. Wish me luck!
I would sell the 3GS privately. You're almost guaranteed to get more for it. Post it somewhere tonight and I'll bet you that you get more for it than what Radio Shack will offer you.
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
I would sell the 3GS privately. You're almost guaranteed to get more for it. Post it somewhere tonight and I'll bet you that you get more for it than what Radio Shack will offer you.
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
boncellis
Jul 14, 11:32 PM
School House Rock - "Oh, I'm just a bill, a lonely old bill, sitting here on Capitol Hill" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569494088/002-8458341-9463244?redirect=true)
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.
jll62
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
The vast majority of consumers won't be basing their tablet purchase on specs.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
The vast majority of consumers won't be basing their tablet purchase on specs.
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...
Multimedia
Sep 13, 12:15 PM
So the question I have is can the latest iMac be CPU upgraded like the MacPro?Only to 2.33GHz Merom C2D which is the forseeable top speed. :(
Peterkro
Mar 24, 02:08 PM
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish,
game of thrones casting
emilia-clarke-game-of-thrones.
game of thrones cast hbo. game
game of thrones cast. game of
game of thrones cast brienne.
More GAME OF THRONES Casting
hbo game of thrones cast
game of thrones cast brienne.
Game of Thrones: Casting Petyr
hbo game of thrones cast
umichfan
Jun 14, 02:07 PM
Nope, he looked it up on his computer and
told me preorders start Thursday for Radio Shack.
However, I would love to be proved wrong on that.
I was told by the employee at my local Radio Shack that they go on sale tomorrow June 15. Sorry I meant you can do the pre-orders. =)
told me preorders start Thursday for Radio Shack.
However, I would love to be proved wrong on that.
I was told by the employee at my local Radio Shack that they go on sale tomorrow June 15. Sorry I meant you can do the pre-orders. =)
DudeDad
Mar 26, 05:17 PM
Reading most of the posts, especially the negative / critical ones, I'm relieved that you guys don't work for Apple!
IMO, Lion will "merge"/"blend" some of the IOS look and feel. It will be a great selling point for those who own iPhones and iPads, but have not taken the Mac plunge....familiarity will be a huge selling point.
Don't like Launchpad? Don't use it. Use the dock or finder. I don't use spaces, but know many who swear by it. To each, his own.
I welcome the next version of Mac OS X, but I do not expect something so radically different that I'm setting myself up for disappointment.
Cheers....
IMO, Lion will "merge"/"blend" some of the IOS look and feel. It will be a great selling point for those who own iPhones and iPads, but have not taken the Mac plunge....familiarity will be a huge selling point.
Don't like Launchpad? Don't use it. Use the dock or finder. I don't use spaces, but know many who swear by it. To each, his own.
I welcome the next version of Mac OS X, but I do not expect something so radically different that I'm setting myself up for disappointment.
Cheers....
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
ghostlyorb
Mar 26, 07:48 AM
I can't wait to get my hands on Lion! It looks pretty cool!
runninmac
Aug 7, 03:23 PM
Wow! Just about everything was bad ass! Time Machine seems awesome, so many times I have saved over a document and didn't have a back up. Now all I need is an external drive.
Were they serious when they said they were saving the best feature for later?
Were they serious when they said they were saving the best feature for later?
Lynxpoint
Aug 6, 07:18 PM
I find it amusing how optimistic Mac users are. Every once in a while Apple has an event where they really wow with product releases, but seems like 9 out of 10 people are predicting amazing releases. By the way, I'm not criticizing in any way, and being optimistic is good.
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
indeed.
That being said, I "wish" that apple would wow the world with something that would make people say "why didn't we do it like that all along?".
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
indeed.
That being said, I "wish" that apple would wow the world with something that would make people say "why didn't we do it like that all along?".
Tones2
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
You failed to read the blog. Wanna try again?
What, that ONE GUY thinks Apple has a solid case? Yeah, I got that part. :rolleyes:
The point being that almost EVERY smart phone even before the iPhone has a black, rectangular shape with square application icons on the Home Screen and a button or three at the bottom. Some closer than others to the iPhone and to EACH OTHER. Jeez...
What, that ONE GUY thinks Apple has a solid case? Yeah, I got that part. :rolleyes:
The point being that almost EVERY smart phone even before the iPhone has a black, rectangular shape with square application icons on the Home Screen and a button or three at the bottom. Some closer than others to the iPhone and to EACH OTHER. Jeez...
daneoni
Aug 25, 03:52 PM
Another person who can never be satisfied.:rolleyes:
What is that even supposed to mean?
What is that even supposed to mean?
Silentwave
Jul 14, 06:22 PM
320 would be the standard. you could upgrade to a terabyte if there are still two HDD bays.
Heck you could have 1.5TB with the new Seagate 750GB drives!
Heck you could have 1.5TB with the new Seagate 750GB drives!
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:14 PM
so... after reading here for a while i got a question, its kinda stupid, i'm good at that,
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
glassbathroom
Jul 28, 03:18 AM
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
MOSR is always good for a laugh, but don't be fooled into believing any of it.
ptysell
Apr 25, 02:24 PM
This is why we need loser pays in the United States.
~Shard~
Jul 14, 03:05 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
I've never thought much of the relevance of its placement myself - why do you say that? Care to elaborate on why it is "REALLY stupid"?
SPUY767
Jul 27, 03:38 PM
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh. I have a dual core Pentium D in a bastard Mac at the house, it runs at 3.8 GHz. I'm pretty sure that even it is slower in a lot of areas than these Core 2's. So no, you're absolutely wrong, the MHz myth is all but dead.
furi0usbee
Mar 26, 06:48 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.'
Because Windows is bloatware. I don't want my Mac OS to be able to run **** 10 years old. This only hampers innovation by having to spend time making sure all the old stuff doesn't break. Move on my friend. I can probably use XP to print to a 15 year old dot matrix printer.
Because Windows is bloatware. I don't want my Mac OS to be able to run **** 10 years old. This only hampers innovation by having to spend time making sure all the old stuff doesn't break. Move on my friend. I can probably use XP to print to a 15 year old dot matrix printer.
No comments:
Post a Comment