rtjstevens
Sep 7, 05:11 AM
this surely is good news. but i wont be watching movies on my current 'pod...the window is too small. all this being dependent on wether or not it's gonna be available in the UK. it's a real bummer not to be able to download TV shows i love like you americans can!
S
This can easily be done with the excellent Miglia TV Mini with the latest EyeTV software -it even has an ipod button on it!
BW
Richard
S
This can easily be done with the excellent Miglia TV Mini with the latest EyeTV software -it even has an ipod button on it!
BW
Richard
ffakr
Nov 25, 05:32 PM
Dell is setting the pricing. It's not about the vendor costs.. it's all about what vendors think customers will pay.
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
After G
Aug 25, 02:38 AM
I think the 64 bitness isn't really necessary for a Mac mini. You're not going to shoehorn >4 GB of memory into two slots, unless memory manufacturers are going to change their minds which I don't think will happen just yet.
The 20% increase in performance only applies to media and content creation. I guess that would be good for a HTPC, but Word won't run any faster. (Tt may start faster though).
There is no reason for Yonah owners to upgrade just yet. It's really more of a nice bonus for those people who could wait until now to get a computer.
Apple prices were lower before because the stagnant tech demanded it. For all we know, the $599 could be the maximum on Apple's profit curve.
The 20% increase in performance only applies to media and content creation. I guess that would be good for a HTPC, but Word won't run any faster. (Tt may start faster though).
There is no reason for Yonah owners to upgrade just yet. It's really more of a nice bonus for those people who could wait until now to get a computer.
Apple prices were lower before because the stagnant tech demanded it. For all we know, the $599 could be the maximum on Apple's profit curve.
mdatwood
Apr 26, 02:02 PM
Matts Macintosh describes 1984 Mac System 1 comes with dash-board like widgets. Video:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/04/1984-mac-os-system-1-gui-apps-video/
Interesting video, although being able to open a calculator seems to be a generous definition of widget.
http://obamapacman.com/2011/04/1984-mac-os-system-1-gui-apps-video/
Interesting video, although being able to open a calculator seems to be a generous definition of widget.
nerdo
Apr 13, 05:40 AM
Holy smoke what is with all the bitching in this thread?
Final Cut X is coming! It seems to have all the stuff i'm dying for.. maybe even CUDA support! Damn now I got to sell my CS5 production suite..
And yeah if you want you can still use iMovie and feel good about it. I know enough people who got a great result out of it because they did not get stuck with tech they didn't understand. All these opinions about personal choices is a total waste of time.
Rejoice the choice and do something creative with all this energy
(FCP is rendering so I have time to waste lol...)
Final Cut X is coming! It seems to have all the stuff i'm dying for.. maybe even CUDA support! Damn now I got to sell my CS5 production suite..
And yeah if you want you can still use iMovie and feel good about it. I know enough people who got a great result out of it because they did not get stuck with tech they didn't understand. All these opinions about personal choices is a total waste of time.
Rejoice the choice and do something creative with all this energy
(FCP is rendering so I have time to waste lol...)
FreeState
Mar 23, 03:00 PM
The App has been pulled because it is not in compliance with developer guidelines.
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-over-dev-guidelines/87815
Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said Wednesday:
�We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.�
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-over-dev-guidelines/87815
Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said Wednesday:
�We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.�
iJawn108
Jan 11, 09:11 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable. i am willing to bet the phase "there's something in the air" is referring to the soon to be announced rental service, not a piece of hardware. apple is making an obvious attempt to eliminate physical mediums altogether, first cds with mp3s and now dvds with downloadable vids (both via the itunes music store). everything will be available "in the air" or "up in the cloud," if you will. i'll be damned if they name their next product the "macbook air." c'mon people...
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 01:10 PM
It seems that if this rumor is correct, then why now? Why not 2 months ago?
because merom is being releaased now, not two months ago. with merom, yonah will propably get very cheap
because merom is being releaased now, not two months ago. with merom, yonah will propably get very cheap
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
Multimedia
Nov 18, 11:04 AM
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
AndrewR23
Apr 10, 02:33 PM
My first car was a shift so yup I had to learn. My girlfriend is being taught by me right now too :)
TheBobcat
Nov 29, 03:32 PM
I don't know, I would have to think Apple has some ace up its sleeve with iTV, since streaming music and video to televisions really isn't all that new or interesting. Tivo does it, Xbox does it, Media Center PC's do it. Apple has to be bringing something pretty compelling and different to the table. I know that their software experience will be superior than to anything current, but I would hope that Apple can offer significantly more reason to buy one than what we've seen offered in the same sector.
aibo82
May 2, 07:54 PM
Yes but are they bringing:
Ios to the mac
Mac to the ios
The wrong way around is going to kill power users and the openeness thats left of the mac os operating system do we really want a closed off mac os/ios hybrid?
Mac os should be advancing not getting waterd down with simple user toys! We are going to be paying more for less!
iPad Pro?
Macbook dead!
Ios to the mac
Mac to the ios
The wrong way around is going to kill power users and the openeness thats left of the mac os operating system do we really want a closed off mac os/ios hybrid?
Mac os should be advancing not getting waterd down with simple user toys! We are going to be paying more for less!
iPad Pro?
Macbook dead!
.jpg "Funny Animals.")
KingYaba
Oct 23, 08:52 PM
One of these days the MBP Merom rumor will be correct. :)
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
wizard
Jun 22, 03:53 PM
Exactly. When did the keyboard and mouse become public enemy number 1? These technologies have been perfected over years and years of real use.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Not in every case but certainly in most cases a Touch screen on the desktop, supporting most productivity apps, is a TERRIBLE idea. I work in a plant full of touch screens supporting various systems and frankly they all suck for general run of the mill interaction or data entry. There is nothing about Apples GUI that can improve this as it is more of a physical ergonomic issue.
However that doesn't mean that touch screen are never useful on the desktop. On the contrary there are apps that can effectively leverage a touch screen. The problem is these are not the apps that most people will be making use of.
In the end I believe you are right about people getting suckered into something they might not ever use. Further I'm more surprised that this rumor is desktop related as a touch screen might actually get used more on a laptop. In the end I just hope this is a bogus rumor.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Not in every case but certainly in most cases a Touch screen on the desktop, supporting most productivity apps, is a TERRIBLE idea. I work in a plant full of touch screens supporting various systems and frankly they all suck for general run of the mill interaction or data entry. There is nothing about Apples GUI that can improve this as it is more of a physical ergonomic issue.
However that doesn't mean that touch screen are never useful on the desktop. On the contrary there are apps that can effectively leverage a touch screen. The problem is these are not the apps that most people will be making use of.
In the end I believe you are right about people getting suckered into something they might not ever use. Further I'm more surprised that this rumor is desktop related as a touch screen might actually get used more on a laptop. In the end I just hope this is a bogus rumor.
4God
Jan 1, 05:38 PM
I think we'll hear more on iTV. I also think now would be the time for iLife and Leopard announcements. It wouldn't surprise me to see an update to the displays, including a built in iSight and a move from 23" to 24" - don't know 'bout that 50 incher though. :rolleyes: I don't think we'll see an update to FCP or MacPros untill NAB.
JGowan
May 3, 12:45 AM
MAS? The Muslim American Society? The Municipal Art Society of NY? Malaysia Airlines? Monetary Authority of Singapore?
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)It was a joke. "Muslim American Society"?... if that doesn't spell joke, I dunno what would. :rolleyes:
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)It was a joke. "Muslim American Society"?... if that doesn't spell joke, I dunno what would. :rolleyes:
oMc
Feb 28, 02:41 PM
@benjayman2 : very nice setup.
Madmic23
Sep 1, 02:26 PM
hopefully this 23 inch one adds something more than just a bigger screen....such as component RGB input which would allow me to hook my my xbox 360 to play. that would RULE.
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
You can already play your Xbox 360 on your iMac, just not in high def. Buy an EyeTV TV adapter that has the game mode, and you can play that way. The best input available on there is an Svideo connection, so you want get HD, but it's still a pretty crisp picture.
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
You can already play your Xbox 360 on your iMac, just not in high def. Buy an EyeTV TV adapter that has the game mode, and you can play that way. The best input available on there is an Svideo connection, so you want get HD, but it's still a pretty crisp picture.
SciFrog
Jan 29, 02:25 AM
Chech the SMP3 thread, maybe we got some advancements on that front...
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:50 AM
Go to Sharing preference pane, enable the Firewall, click Advanced, and enabling Firewall Logging.
Your wish just came true. All blocked intrusions are now logged for your perusal.
I think he means more like XP SP2 / Vista. They have a Security Center which gives you your firewall settings, antivirus (if installed) and spyware protection (if installed). Its nice to have it all in one place, no one wants to go digging thru logs, you are crazy.... LOL
Your wish just came true. All blocked intrusions are now logged for your perusal.
I think he means more like XP SP2 / Vista. They have a Security Center which gives you your firewall settings, antivirus (if installed) and spyware protection (if installed). Its nice to have it all in one place, no one wants to go digging thru logs, you are crazy.... LOL
Dont Hurt Me
Aug 27, 06:26 PM
This is the $64K question. Does anyone know when the X3000 is due to be released?True, with it the mini is a solid little machine, without it it still lacks graphics. Its coming soon because Intel wants to take away $$$ from nvidia & ati.
jxyama
Mar 31, 07:01 AM
How about three options....
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment