Chip NoVaMac
Nov 27, 12:57 AM
There will NOT be a tablet - there is ZERO market for it.
A device already exists that does the work of a tablet PC - its called an iBook.
IF you want a really cheap tablet - try pen and paper.
There maybe "ZERO" interest in a Tablet PC for the M$ implementation of it.
There were MP3 players before the iPod, but Apple made it easy and cool to have one.
The original Toshiba Libretto had a decent following in its day.
The iBook is a close also ran IMHO. Given the comments here there is a desire for something the size of the 10" Sony sub-notebook that would give users the option of a touch screen and keyboard. In particular, if it were very near or under the $1000 price point.
A device already exists that does the work of a tablet PC - its called an iBook.
IF you want a really cheap tablet - try pen and paper.
There maybe "ZERO" interest in a Tablet PC for the M$ implementation of it.
There were MP3 players before the iPod, but Apple made it easy and cool to have one.
The original Toshiba Libretto had a decent following in its day.
The iBook is a close also ran IMHO. Given the comments here there is a desire for something the size of the 10" Sony sub-notebook that would give users the option of a touch screen and keyboard. In particular, if it were very near or under the $1000 price point.
toddybody
Mar 28, 10:33 AM
...Apple is starting to fall into the Valve-Time Vortex: incredible products teased at, and never released on time! *Mass Panic and Chaos
logandzwon
Apr 5, 02:37 PM
Actually that's an ignorant and factually incorrect statement.
iPhone users are more satisfied with their devices than other smart phone owners AND they sell more iPhones everyday.
Hence the population is statistically growing.
I think he means that more and more people are jailbreaking their phones. However, I doubt the percentage of JB phones is expanding at the rate iOS is.
iPhone users are more satisfied with their devices than other smart phone owners AND they sell more iPhones everyday.
Hence the population is statistically growing.
I think he means that more and more people are jailbreaking their phones. However, I doubt the percentage of JB phones is expanding at the rate iOS is.
*LTD*
Mar 30, 09:39 PM
So have we got a changelog yet?
w_parietti22
Jul 29, 10:28 PM
crap. :( I just got a new phone.
twoodcc
Aug 3, 07:23 AM
It's not a "chintzy marketing ploy by Intel". It's a scientific test conducted by two Intel Marketing engineers which I always believe because Intel employees are honest people with families and friends who love them. :)
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
�algiris
Apr 26, 02:35 PM
iOS is neither, at the moment.
Depends on who you ask.
Depends on who you ask.
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 05:50 PM
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
The latter makes apple sauce, which to me is more a peel ing:-)
The latter makes apple sauce, which to me is more a peel ing:-)
Erasmus
Aug 4, 06:48 PM
New iMacs next Tuesday. I'll take one if it comes with a Conroe, Apple, thank you. But of course, if that's too hot, a Merom would do fine, too. Unless it will still use that dull 667MHz FSB, of course. At least put in an X1800 in it. Oh, and 1GB of RAM. And, while you're at it, throw in a 24" display too. And get rid of the lower bevel of the 'display design'. All that, and I'm buying straight away. If it will come pre-loaded with Leopard and will have a universal BlueRay/HD DVD-burner built-in, that is.
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
Sounds like someone wants an iMac Ultra! (Really final Propaganda)
We Apple customers want an iMac with at LEAST (preferrably >>) 2.4 Conroe, at least an X1800 with 512 MB (Which should be quite likely if the PMs (sorry MPs) get SLI), a 23" screen, which Apple should have plenty of from their Cinema D's, and more RAM slots than you can polk a 2Gb RAM stick at (Meaning >=4), with most of them filled.
All for under AU$4 Grand.
That should take care of all gamers, any professionals who require a reasonably portable Desktop with awesome power, and in fact, anyone else.
--------------------
MBPs do use Lithium Polymer batteries. It says so on the Apple MBP website. I'm sure the MBs do too.
--------------------
As an aside, is anyone else here as happy as I am that we will never see one of those evil "Pentium" chips in our precious Macs? Hooray, there will be no Pentium 5! (Unless they call the Conroe line Pentium, like they keep calling Core Duo "Centrino Duo", to my utmost annoyance. Isn't Centrino the "Budget" brand name?)
Death (Or severe overheating and frying) to all Pentiums!
--------------------
Anyone else here interested in an iMac Ultra?
Anyone else have an extreme and probably unwarranted hatred of the Pentium moniker?
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
Sounds like someone wants an iMac Ultra! (Really final Propaganda)
We Apple customers want an iMac with at LEAST (preferrably >>) 2.4 Conroe, at least an X1800 with 512 MB (Which should be quite likely if the PMs (sorry MPs) get SLI), a 23" screen, which Apple should have plenty of from their Cinema D's, and more RAM slots than you can polk a 2Gb RAM stick at (Meaning >=4), with most of them filled.
All for under AU$4 Grand.
That should take care of all gamers, any professionals who require a reasonably portable Desktop with awesome power, and in fact, anyone else.
--------------------
MBPs do use Lithium Polymer batteries. It says so on the Apple MBP website. I'm sure the MBs do too.
--------------------
As an aside, is anyone else here as happy as I am that we will never see one of those evil "Pentium" chips in our precious Macs? Hooray, there will be no Pentium 5! (Unless they call the Conroe line Pentium, like they keep calling Core Duo "Centrino Duo", to my utmost annoyance. Isn't Centrino the "Budget" brand name?)
Death (Or severe overheating and frying) to all Pentiums!
--------------------
Anyone else here interested in an iMac Ultra?
Anyone else have an extreme and probably unwarranted hatred of the Pentium moniker?
flopticalcube
May 4, 11:20 PM
You metric people ought to hook up with the military time people.
Odd you should say that as the US military is an early adopter of things metric, at least by US standards. (there's a pun in there)
Odd you should say that as the US military is an early adopter of things metric, at least by US standards. (there's a pun in there)
el3ktro
May 8, 05:34 AM
That would be awesome. They should at least cut the price. MobileMe adds so much value to your iProducts, I have a MacBook, an iPhone and since yesterday an iPad, and MobileMe makes all three of them so much more valuable. But I know lots of people who would like to use MobileMe, but who say that 79� is just to much for it.
wclyffe
Jan 28, 07:28 PM
I purchased the TOMTOM app early on and paid $99 for it. One week later, I found it posted in the App Store for $49.99 and today, a couple of weeks after that, the price is $59.99. I have searched the App Store site, iTunes Store AND the Apple site and do not understand how to find a Customer Service Link to ask about a refund for the difference in price. Does anyone know how to reach Customer Service for the APP Store? Thanks in advance...
Yeah, they don't make it easy.
Go to the iTunes store and click on your account name in the upper right, put in your password and log into your account (View Account). Then half way down the page is a button called Purchase History, hit that and find the TomTom app you bought. You'll see a little arrow to the left of it. Click that and report a problem to start the process.
Yeah, they don't make it easy.
Go to the iTunes store and click on your account name in the upper right, put in your password and log into your account (View Account). Then half way down the page is a button called Purchase History, hit that and find the TomTom app you bought. You'll see a little arrow to the left of it. Click that and report a problem to start the process.
wizard
Mar 29, 04:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Always looking at the negative side of things. Maybe a little radiation will lead to higher power densities.
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Who is joking here?
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
Always looking at the negative side of things. Maybe a little radiation will lead to higher power densities.
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Who is joking here?
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
Full of Win
May 4, 02:54 PM
Great...until you need to do a reinstall. While you could go 10.6 >10.7, going straight to 10.7 is so much better.
Wasn't there some talk about Lion having a recovery partition? I would wager, if it did, that is how you would reinstall it without burning a disc.
Except when your HD becomes toast...
Wasn't there some talk about Lion having a recovery partition? I would wager, if it did, that is how you would reinstall it without burning a disc.
Except when your HD becomes toast...
noahtk
Apr 23, 09:56 PM
Why has it taken them so long to embrace HD????!! And no... 720p is not the standard...
tstreete
Nov 9, 02:21 PM
So far I think the phone calls sound fine for the person on the other end, and OK on my end; at freeway speeds my car is loud so I have to listen carefully.
I think the mount's GPS chip signal is actually routed through the dock connection. Just phone (and app voice, if necessary) connect through bluetooth. Maybe this is because Apple doesn't let non-audio devices of any sort to connect through bluetooth; if they did, then we'd all have been using external bluetooth gps receivers long ago.
Thanks...I was hoping this was true! I do not like my phone calls booming through my car speakers as its too big a sound. I wondered about this connection as the GPS chip is connected by bluetooth I believe, so I wasn't sure what else might be.
Have you found the bluetooth speakerphone to be working well enough for you and the person on the other end?
Thanks for all your help.
I think the mount's GPS chip signal is actually routed through the dock connection. Just phone (and app voice, if necessary) connect through bluetooth. Maybe this is because Apple doesn't let non-audio devices of any sort to connect through bluetooth; if they did, then we'd all have been using external bluetooth gps receivers long ago.
Thanks...I was hoping this was true! I do not like my phone calls booming through my car speakers as its too big a sound. I wondered about this connection as the GPS chip is connected by bluetooth I believe, so I wasn't sure what else might be.
Have you found the bluetooth speakerphone to be working well enough for you and the person on the other end?
Thanks for all your help.
lilo777
Apr 26, 04:44 PM
I just don't really see how anyone should be surprised. It should be totally obvious to anyone who watches the smart phone market that Android would easily surpass IOS--they are indeed everywhere and I'm sure when it comes time to get a new phone--those with no preconceived ideas on what they want will walk out of the store with some kind of Android. Most who go in looking for an iPhone will probably leave with one. As long as Apple--and their shareholders are happy, I don't think it really matters.
Phone users will be the first to see feel the impact of these developments as Android ecosystem will see much faster development than iOS. With more and better options, users will overwhelmingly switch to Android. And then, it'll be AAPL shareholders turn to feel the impact.
Phone users will be the first to see feel the impact of these developments as Android ecosystem will see much faster development than iOS. With more and better options, users will overwhelmingly switch to Android. And then, it'll be AAPL shareholders turn to feel the impact.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Swarmlord
Nov 27, 09:22 AM
i don't think it would appeal to that many people, to have an apple tablet.
i mean, the PC/Win versions aren't great sellers...
Probably used more for medical infomatics applications than anything else. Here at the nursing college I work for we are always evaluating Windoze tablet computers for medical applications. Sure would be nice to see a Mac alternative out there.
i mean, the PC/Win versions aren't great sellers...
Probably used more for medical infomatics applications than anything else. Here at the nursing college I work for we are always evaluating Windoze tablet computers for medical applications. Sure would be nice to see a Mac alternative out there.
Jape
Nov 4, 03:15 PM
I was doing some research on bottom line telecommunications and i came across these good reviews: :D
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
Sam*
Aug 11, 11:28 AM
I'm also betting that the macbook pro and macbook both get core 2 duo chips, with MBP getting faster ones with 4MB L2 cache, and MB getting slower ones with lower L2 cache.
i agree, this will set them the mb and mbp apart well
Although i still think the macbook will use core duo for a while to come with for now if the mbp's get merom, the mb will have the clock speeds of the current mbp's (2.0 and 2.16) when the new mbp is released,
But most of all i want conroe in the iMac
i agree, this will set them the mb and mbp apart well
Although i still think the macbook will use core duo for a while to come with for now if the mbp's get merom, the mb will have the clock speeds of the current mbp's (2.0 and 2.16) when the new mbp is released,
But most of all i want conroe in the iMac
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:23 PM
Assuming (1) changes in tax policy have immediate effects, and (2) there is no such thing as as normal economic business cycles that overlay tax changes.
No, not assuming that. The tax increases of the 90s came a few years before the explosive growth of the 90s. The same was true of the 50s and 60s.
No, not assuming that. The tax increases of the 90s came a few years before the explosive growth of the 90s. The same was true of the 50s and 60s.
derbothaus
Apr 28, 11:54 AM
Wow. You brought actual stats to the table. I stand corrected on the melting bit:o
tgdbowler
Mar 28, 10:37 AM
If Apple waits till September, this would put the Verizon iPhone 6-7 months old and possibly release both NEW versions at the same time.
If Apple waits till Febraury, this would put the Verizon iPhone at 1 year old and release both NEW versions at the same time.
In Apple’s view, this is how the release schedule should be: releasing both versions at the same time so it's competition can't update their phones before the iPhone hits the Verizon network 6 months later.
Say what you want about hardware issues, etc... They are trying to sync up the release schedules for both iPhone versions.
If Apple waits till Febraury, this would put the Verizon iPhone at 1 year old and release both NEW versions at the same time.
In Apple’s view, this is how the release schedule should be: releasing both versions at the same time so it's competition can't update their phones before the iPhone hits the Verizon network 6 months later.
Say what you want about hardware issues, etc... They are trying to sync up the release schedules for both iPhone versions.