sartinsauce
Sep 11, 03:14 PM
Extremely unlikely. Or i`d say it`s impossible. We`ll definitely get DVD quality(atleast as an option). But my guesses are 720p will also be offered to those with a really really FAT internet pipe. Fat enough to fill a human body I guess:D .
I really think Apple will offer atleast 3 resolutions ie QVGA, DVD and(crossing fingers) HD 720p(may be at an extra cost and limited in number of available titles). Apple needs to do something which will set them apart from Amazon. I`ll be really disappointed if all we get is the same as Amazon.
Not gonna happen.
Apple's delivery requirements for iTMS are for an SD resolution (720x486). Many networks, in an effort to expidite iTMS availability, send Apple tapes containing content. Apple will not accept tapes in an HD format.
That being said, DVD quality downloads now (or in the near future) are a distinct possibility. Again, bandwidth is a mofo. How do you offer so much content, with such large file-sizes, to millions of customers simultaneously, while also maintaining bandwidth for music downloads.
Will there be a download queue, so we have to wait in line to download content?
I really think Apple will offer atleast 3 resolutions ie QVGA, DVD and(crossing fingers) HD 720p(may be at an extra cost and limited in number of available titles). Apple needs to do something which will set them apart from Amazon. I`ll be really disappointed if all we get is the same as Amazon.
Not gonna happen.
Apple's delivery requirements for iTMS are for an SD resolution (720x486). Many networks, in an effort to expidite iTMS availability, send Apple tapes containing content. Apple will not accept tapes in an HD format.
That being said, DVD quality downloads now (or in the near future) are a distinct possibility. Again, bandwidth is a mofo. How do you offer so much content, with such large file-sizes, to millions of customers simultaneously, while also maintaining bandwidth for music downloads.
Will there be a download queue, so we have to wait in line to download content?
macman4291
Jul 24, 12:39 AM
No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
komodrone
Apr 26, 02:39 PM
"...in total penetration"
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.
yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.
yeah I signed up for an account just to post this.
mrdice87
Sep 16, 12:47 PM
What's the possiblility of the new mbp being available in stores after the announcement? Is one usually required to order new products online or could I skip the wait by driving an hour to the nearest apple store?
p0intblank
Sep 11, 08:21 AM
Wow, a lot of people are expecting a true iPod video. I really don't see this happening so soon. I expect the following:
iTunes Movie Store (this is a given)
iPod nanos
6G iPods (simply larger capacity and maybe a new feature or two)
I would love to see the true iPod video be announced tomorrow. It'd be great to go alongside the new Movie Store. The rumors have been pretty light lately, though, so I am not expecting that much.
iTunes Movie Store (this is a given)
iPod nanos
6G iPods (simply larger capacity and maybe a new feature or two)
I would love to see the true iPod video be announced tomorrow. It'd be great to go alongside the new Movie Store. The rumors have been pretty light lately, though, so I am not expecting that much.
Don't panic
May 5, 04:44 PM
We have axes. How about cutting a shortcut through a floor, wall, or ceiling :eek: .
On another note, how many above ground floors does this house have ? From the outside, we would have seen how many floors the house has.
if nothing happens in the next few minutes, i am about to prepare some goblin stew.
On another note, how many above ground floors does this house have ? From the outside, we would have seen how many floors the house has.
if nothing happens in the next few minutes, i am about to prepare some goblin stew.
klrobinson999
Mar 27, 09:09 AM
They won't release a new iPhone without a software version update for iOS. Perhaps 5.0 in the summer and 5.1 when the music event happens?
QuantumLo0p
Nov 17, 02:53 PM
And why are we so worried about passing on Windows Viruses, doesn't everyone running Windows HAVE TO run AV software. They would be nuts if they didn't. Viruses and malware have been and will always be problems that windows users will face. Just like you said.
I suppose it still remains a personal choice, albeit quite a gray area. IMO, knowingly passing on a virus to another computer, and damage results, could very well be interpreted as malice and then be subject to criminal charges. I am not an expert on it but even if criminal law does not apply, possible civil action certainly does apply. Suing someone over damages could become more common in the future.
I know I would sue the jackass.
:D
I suppose it still remains a personal choice, albeit quite a gray area. IMO, knowingly passing on a virus to another computer, and damage results, could very well be interpreted as malice and then be subject to criminal charges. I am not an expert on it but even if criminal law does not apply, possible civil action certainly does apply. Suing someone over damages could become more common in the future.
I know I would sue the jackass.
:D
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.)
dexthageek
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
Where do these survey companies get there data from? I have NEVER been asked any questions about stuff like this. Plus with statistics you can fudge the numbers to represent just about anything.
longofest
Sep 15, 04:24 PM
So, how is MacShrine perceived in the rumor community? Do they have a sufficiently good track record for us to say, "this is it - the Merom MBP is finally coming", or is this likely to be just another rehash of all the Core2Duo MBP hype/frustration going around?
see for yourself
http://www.macrumors.com/site.php?mode=search&term=MacShrine
see for yourself
http://www.macrumors.com/site.php?mode=search&term=MacShrine
rinconj
Aug 7, 07:37 PM
Is this whole heat sinked ram issue for real?
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
Their estimated shipping date is on the safe side that it's how long it'll take if it has to be shipped from Mars. I ordered two BT mighty mice the day it came out and the shipping date was said to be some time late Auguest, but it arrived two days later ( late July).
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
Their estimated shipping date is on the safe side that it's how long it'll take if it has to be shipped from Mars. I ordered two BT mighty mice the day it came out and the shipping date was said to be some time late Auguest, but it arrived two days later ( late July).
ten-oak-druid
Mar 29, 09:48 PM
The kindle and the ipad will be the winners in the tablet wars. They offer different experiences. The kindle is really nice and it is truly different than the ipad. The rest of the competition are ipad knock offs. Apparently the xoom is bombing. Samsung's tablet is not selling well. Of course there are those that will bring up whether Jobs misquoted the Samsung CEO. but who cares really? The truth is the samsung tablet isn't even close to selling the numbers Apple is. THAT is the real issue. Jobs knew it and so used the quote. All the back pedaling from samsung was just that. The original quote was the truth.
balamw
Apr 10, 05:45 PM
Having passed through college or any math class doesn't prove anything, even that someone is working in a particular field doesn't necessarily make it an expert in the subject.
Math is a language we engineers, scientists, economists, etc... are fluent in.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
Math is a language we engineers, scientists, economists, etc... are fluent in.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
infidel69
Mar 28, 11:21 AM
Great news...... for Google.
jeff303
Aug 4, 04:56 PM
i do not know the technical stuff, but i do know that if you had all 64-bit stuff, then it'd be a lot better than all 32-bit stuff. (i know i should use better termanology, but oh well)
Ummm, that's not so clear to me. The only thing 64-bit gives you is more addressable memory. Oh, and some operations (like adding two doubles or longs) would only take one cycle on the integer unit, instead of more. Yeah... that's about it.
Ummm, that's not so clear to me. The only thing 64-bit gives you is more addressable memory. Oh, and some operations (like adding two doubles or longs) would only take one cycle on the integer unit, instead of more. Yeah... that's about it.
SiliconAddict
Aug 12, 12:59 AM
I haven't read through all tghe posts but just in case someone hasn't posted it yet...
WAH! My MBP is obsolete! How could Jobs do this to me! :( ;) That being said bring on the quad cores in the MBP's in a couple years. Just when I will be getting ready to upgrade. :D
WAH! My MBP is obsolete! How could Jobs do this to me! :( ;) That being said bring on the quad cores in the MBP's in a couple years. Just when I will be getting ready to upgrade. :D
LegendKillerUK
Apr 23, 05:11 PM
Am I the only one who loves looking at high res high quality icons? I feel a bit sad over here. :p
dba7dba
Apr 18, 05:18 PM
Good, so let LG sue Apple. Just one problem: the iPhone doesn't actually look like the Prada. At all.
SInce you obviously don't want to leave macrumors screen to see the image of LG Prada, please look at post #242. Pic is embedded.
SInce you obviously don't want to leave macrumors screen to see the image of LG Prada, please look at post #242. Pic is embedded.
polaris20
Apr 18, 04:08 PM
There are several ways to lose a patent. One way is not to defend it. Another ways is trying to defend bogus patents and have the court invalidate it.
That's true, but in this case the similarities are so close I'd hardly call it bogus.
That's true, but in this case the similarities are so close I'd hardly call it bogus.
tstreete
Nov 14, 08:23 AM
The key for making this purchase for me is to have at least the option to allow the calls to come in through the car's speakers while using the built-in mic on the dock.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.
cecildk9999
Nov 22, 07:45 AM
I wouldn't mind having Apple sell them (and I'm guessing they will to some degree), but we also have to think in terms of the market as is. If I can get a free phone through my provider every x years, I'm going to do that instead of buying outside the company (even if it is crap). If I can get an upgrade for between $50 and $300, I might consider it when I'm in the store renewing my plan. Apple can gain presence only by going through established channels; it's not to say that you won't be able to buy one in an Apple store, just that consumers who like to do comparison shopping when they get their phones might like to see an iPhone in a TMobile/Verizon/3rd party carrier store.
seek3r
Apr 22, 12:40 AM
You are right, I fold. I know nothing about 19" racks (1.80 meters tall and 150 kg. in weight), and nothing about conditioned server rooms with dual power feeds at all. Flight cases with equipment I also know nothing about. I'm sorry I'm doubting your knowledge and insight.
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
kirk26
Aug 3, 12:00 PM
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
I'm keeping this for my quote. Classic!
I'm keeping this for my quote. Classic!
No comments:
Post a Comment