amols
Aug 16, 07:26 AM
I think they'll use 802.11 for wireless. That way, I can stream my music from iPod to Airport Express directly. Although Firewire/USB will still be the primary I/O.
jgould
Feb 19, 06:18 PM
Not much I can do with my dorm.
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
What is the cord that is going into your chemistry book? I've heard of E-Books, but I didn't know they needed power cords... ;)
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 10:33 PM
Happy WWDC Eve everyone! May tomorrow bring you everything you wanted! :rolleyes: ;) :D
Josh
Am I supposed to leave out cookies? :p :D
Josh
Am I supposed to leave out cookies? :p :D
tychay
Nov 28, 08:09 PM
I have no idea where you got that one from. The original Xbox never made a profit. Microsoft is deliberately selling the Xbox 360 at a loss to capture marketshare. However, the PS3 and Ninetindo Wii are selling like hotcakes, are latest big things, and have the buzz. The best laid plans ...
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
dethmaShine
May 4, 03:42 AM
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
lololol
This is going to seriously hinder my productivity with application deletion. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and change my productivity schedules for next year to include an hour of application deletion per day instead of 30 minutes.
Oh, wait a second, this only applies to mac app store applications? Thanks god! I'll just need to increase it to 45 minutes per day in that case. What a relief.
:rolleyes:
1. Works for any app [MAS app + any other deletable app].
2. You can drag and drop into Trash.
3. This behavior is in launchpad not in the finder or the terminal. You have other ways to delete applications too.
lololol
This is going to seriously hinder my productivity with application deletion. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and change my productivity schedules for next year to include an hour of application deletion per day instead of 30 minutes.
Oh, wait a second, this only applies to mac app store applications? Thanks god! I'll just need to increase it to 45 minutes per day in that case. What a relief.
:rolleyes:
1. Works for any app [MAS app + any other deletable app].
2. You can drag and drop into Trash.
3. This behavior is in launchpad not in the finder or the terminal. You have other ways to delete applications too.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:04 PM
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Caitlyn
Sep 1, 12:57 PM
Wow, this would be amazing. Screw my plan to buy an ACD if this happens. A MacBook and a 23" iMac would look awesome on my new glass desk. ;)
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Extras that would be cool:
Option for Black
No Chin
That's all I can think of as the iMac is a quite capable, beautiful looking machine already. :)
This price range would seem fair to me:
17" iMac $1299
20" iMac $1499
23" iMac $1699
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Extras that would be cool:
Option for Black
No Chin
That's all I can think of as the iMac is a quite capable, beautiful looking machine already. :)
This price range would seem fair to me:
17" iMac $1299
20" iMac $1499
23" iMac $1699
Nishi100
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Is address book the same; and can you post a screenshot, anyway?
doberman211
Mar 22, 11:04 PM
Well the apple TV has no drive anymore. if i could store stuff on the ipod i would be very happy. with 220GB storage? hell yeah! radio is a good idea too. no internal speakers because they just sound terrible. but higher screen resolution, yeah. i think so. i put movies on it occasionally. the usefulness of airplay features and blutooth are wireless headphones/speakers removing the need for a dock entirely. i don't really see the practicality of even having HDMI. but nothing too substantial. no new games thank you, im very content with klondike and the occasional session of vortex.
lordonuthin
Dec 23, 06:03 PM
New work units are on the way (http://folding.typepad.com/)
Just have to wait to see what the ppd will be.
Just have to wait to see what the ppd will be.
CEAbiscuit
Oct 23, 09:26 AM
Since there is little to no hope that apple will bring back the 12" casing, my powerbook will have to for now. It just seems to keep chugging... the new (free, because of recall) battery seems to further my resolve in resisting to make a move. The earliest purchase of a new powerbook will wait until next year when I can have a new OS. Simpleton's rule...
sunwukong
Nov 28, 10:55 PM
This thing has a serious bug infestation : :eek:
Zune Scene Tech Support : http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=e68f9fffa988200ca99f9040d747224f&board=15.0
Zune Scene Tech Support : http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=e68f9fffa988200ca99f9040d747224f&board=15.0
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 19, 05:00 PM
The great numbers shown today just prove that this is the perfect moment to bury MS once and for all in the OS war...OS X is by far the best system, and Longsight is still more than 6 months away...Microsoft is doomed.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
Yeah....no....
Aren't there still more people using Windows Me/Windows 98/Windows 95 than all Mac OS users...??? People don't upgrade quickly - it would be dozens of years before Apple could even have, say, a 25% marketshare.
Multimedia
Aug 29, 10:25 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608macmini.html) to have information on the rumored revision (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml) to the Mac Mini. According to the site, Apple will replace the existing Core Solo model with the existing 1.66 GHz Core Duo model, and add a 1.83 GHz Core Duo model, effectively eliminating all single-core CPUs from Apple's computer product line.
The new systems are said to be "ready for production." Think Secret believes the models will be introduced in a few weeks time with little fanfare, although not totally under the radar like the last Mac Mini update (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050930023909.shtml).Not Core 2 Duo??!! :eek: :confused: :( I can't beleive they are not going to go Core 2 Duo in the mini before Thanksgiving.Only if they don't drop prices. Just depends what they charge, if they had core solo for $399 sales would go through the roof.And Apple would be losing money with every sale. :rolleyes:
And for all you Yonah FanBoys out there I say you are completely out of touch with reality living in some sort of parallel dimension where old obsolete stopgap technology prevails beyond it's short useful lifespan. :) It makes no sense to me why would a laptop be more powerful than a desktop. If you're gonna stay with core duo why not just make the mini a 1.83 & 2.00 GHz Core Duo machine like the macbooks. 1.66 & 1.83 on a core duo is pathetic in my opinions and solidifies my believe that the mini and i will never get along....at least for now. Thats just too much crippling to handle.Here here. I totally agree. Staying with Core Duo is insane, rude and greedy.
Think Secret claims (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608macmini.html) to have information on the rumored revision (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060824183848.shtml) to the Mac Mini. According to the site, Apple will replace the existing Core Solo model with the existing 1.66 GHz Core Duo model, and add a 1.83 GHz Core Duo model, effectively eliminating all single-core CPUs from Apple's computer product line.
The new systems are said to be "ready for production." Think Secret believes the models will be introduced in a few weeks time with little fanfare, although not totally under the radar like the last Mac Mini update (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/09/20050930023909.shtml).Not Core 2 Duo??!! :eek: :confused: :( I can't beleive they are not going to go Core 2 Duo in the mini before Thanksgiving.Only if they don't drop prices. Just depends what they charge, if they had core solo for $399 sales would go through the roof.And Apple would be losing money with every sale. :rolleyes:
And for all you Yonah FanBoys out there I say you are completely out of touch with reality living in some sort of parallel dimension where old obsolete stopgap technology prevails beyond it's short useful lifespan. :) It makes no sense to me why would a laptop be more powerful than a desktop. If you're gonna stay with core duo why not just make the mini a 1.83 & 2.00 GHz Core Duo machine like the macbooks. 1.66 & 1.83 on a core duo is pathetic in my opinions and solidifies my believe that the mini and i will never get along....at least for now. Thats just too much crippling to handle.Here here. I totally agree. Staying with Core Duo is insane, rude and greedy.
kiwi-in-uk
Jul 19, 07:02 PM
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
OS X?
OS X?
spicyapple
Nov 28, 09:50 AM
Ouch. Third time's the charm for Microsoft, though, which would put their Zune mini iPod killer for a 2009 release date. By then, we'd all have iPod sub-cutaneous implants.
alexhasfun28
Apr 2, 07:24 PM
This is something people need to realize once in a while. It’s not about CPU and RAM. A Droid Incredible can have an 8 megapixel camera, and the photo quality may be not be the best people expect. An iPhone 4 can have 5 megapixels in a sensor and people are delighted with the quality!
Specs are nice, but learning that it actually WORKS, is something other.
Specs are nice, but learning that it actually WORKS, is something other.
iqwertyi
Nov 27, 11:46 PM
Christmas Presents for friends and family :)
EricNau
Sep 6, 05:58 PM
For 10 to 15 bucks these videos better be a higher quality than their current videos in the iTunes Music Store.
I was hoping they'd be releasing a Mac Media Center to compliment this movie service, but after today's iMac update that seems unlikely (the 24" iMac would have been the perfect all-in-one media mac).
As for Disney and Apple, who would have thought! :eek: ;) :p
I was hoping they'd be releasing a Mac Media Center to compliment this movie service, but after today's iMac update that seems unlikely (the 24" iMac would have been the perfect all-in-one media mac).
As for Disney and Apple, who would have thought! :eek: ;) :p
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 4, 09:19 PM
Dear god I hope that Golf GTD shows up stateside.
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
jrbdmb
Apr 19, 03:33 PM
I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
jwp1964
Jan 8, 11:57 AM
I upgraded a few things in 2010:
Rancho Quick Lift (2.5 in leveling kit) front
Rancho RS9000XL shocks for rear
Rancho wireless controller for suspension
Bridgestone REVO 2 AT Tires 285/75/17
Black Nerf Bars
Black Rhino-lining bedliner
Rancho Quick Lift (2.5 in leveling kit) front
Rancho RS9000XL shocks for rear
Rancho wireless controller for suspension
Bridgestone REVO 2 AT Tires 285/75/17
Black Nerf Bars
Black Rhino-lining bedliner
Surely
Nov 24, 11:09 AM
A new case for my iPhone:
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/13/3/AAAACw-9PVcAAAAAABM2qA.jpg?v=1228421860000
;)
http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/13/3/AAAACw-9PVcAAAAAABM2qA.jpg?v=1228421860000
;)
hyperpasta
Sep 1, 03:40 PM
you can always wish but there is no chance in hell we will see this kind of pricing.
Maybe. But this is a lineup I would wish for in January. The pricing is meant to reflect what I would expect them. Also remember that the Mac mini was replaced with the Mac Cube, which would use cheaper, larger components.
EDIT: Oh, and I wouldn't dream of it actually happening. I think it COULD, but it WON'T.
Maybe. But this is a lineup I would wish for in January. The pricing is meant to reflect what I would expect them. Also remember that the Mac mini was replaced with the Mac Cube, which would use cheaper, larger components.
EDIT: Oh, and I wouldn't dream of it actually happening. I think it COULD, but it WON'T.