MarximusMG
Mar 28, 10:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Very interesting! I think it's funny how so many people are so sure that they know Apple will stick to their regular timeframe and nothing else. As if the idea of them switching things up is just out of the question.
Very interesting! I think it's funny how so many people are so sure that they know Apple will stick to their regular timeframe and nothing else. As if the idea of them switching things up is just out of the question.
akm3
Apr 24, 09:37 PM
Wow, that would look rly horrible, i mean 960x640 on a 27 inch screen:eek:
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
At least the video cards would be able to drive decent frame rates :p
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
At least the video cards would be able to drive decent frame rates :p
LegendKillerUK
Apr 25, 10:58 AM
There could be a few reasons for the database.
iAds - while Apple don't receive any information now, who knows if they may have intended to down the road for targeted iAds based on location. This point is pure speculation and not accusation.
Device Upgrades - Have the database collect info on your current device, copy it to iTunes as part of the backup and dump it on a new device (Say you bought an iPhone 4 coming from a 3GS) Now the iPhone 4 knows what you're 3GS already did, so the new device is as 'smart' as the old one. Makes for a more seamless transition.
iAds - while Apple don't receive any information now, who knows if they may have intended to down the road for targeted iAds based on location. This point is pure speculation and not accusation.
Device Upgrades - Have the database collect info on your current device, copy it to iTunes as part of the backup and dump it on a new device (Say you bought an iPhone 4 coming from a 3GS) Now the iPhone 4 knows what you're 3GS already did, so the new device is as 'smart' as the old one. Makes for a more seamless transition.
TedSlawski
Aug 7, 02:25 PM
Well a really fast computer at a reasonable price that you don't have to wait months for? I'm pinching myself before I make the call and order one. The idea that this could be what the original dual 2gig G5 that I (and a lot of other people) waited months for and really was kind of a ho-hum experience updating from a dual 800 quicksilver. Just playing around with a dual core iMac and being impressed says "this has got to be the one". The promise that they made for the G5 and didn't come across with. I would really like to play around with one of thses and say WOW!, not try to remember if it opened Photoshop faster than my quicksilver or not. 4 X 2.66Ghz Woodcrest�oughta do it!
Popeye206
Apr 5, 03:15 PM
My beef is - Apple expect me to pay $99 to be able to put my own applications on my own device. On a yearly basis.
I understand why apple do this - people *may* start side-loading applications and thus apple will lose downloads from its appstore ( i.e., free applications - you'd still *buy* your apps from the AppStore ).
Having said that the amount of people that would go this route would be minimal, since you have to compile the application beforehand.. ( mention the word 'compile' alone is enough to deter people ). The majority would just stick to the convenience of AppStore.
Yes, I understand why apple don't like Toyota doing this - its encouraging people to JB their device and potentially degrade their iOS experience, which then reflects upon Apple. However, people should only JB if they understand that doing so voids their warranty AND *may* degrade their device performance.
Your quoting of 'Scion' is short sighted. Had Apple let this fly without comment - replace 'Scion' with 'Others' . Though, you may find the themes 'ugly' others may not.
What smartphone company charges $1500 for a developer license?
Again... I don't think Apple should have let this fly. It was a bad call by Toyota to encourage such a thing as JB'g to the general public. Not cool, and it's not for everyone.
As for the developers license, I didn't say smart phone companies... I said developer programs. Adobe has one. Oracle, MS, many do and they are way more expensive than $99.
I understand why apple do this - people *may* start side-loading applications and thus apple will lose downloads from its appstore ( i.e., free applications - you'd still *buy* your apps from the AppStore ).
Having said that the amount of people that would go this route would be minimal, since you have to compile the application beforehand.. ( mention the word 'compile' alone is enough to deter people ). The majority would just stick to the convenience of AppStore.
Yes, I understand why apple don't like Toyota doing this - its encouraging people to JB their device and potentially degrade their iOS experience, which then reflects upon Apple. However, people should only JB if they understand that doing so voids their warranty AND *may* degrade their device performance.
Your quoting of 'Scion' is short sighted. Had Apple let this fly without comment - replace 'Scion' with 'Others' . Though, you may find the themes 'ugly' others may not.
What smartphone company charges $1500 for a developer license?
Again... I don't think Apple should have let this fly. It was a bad call by Toyota to encourage such a thing as JB'g to the general public. Not cool, and it's not for everyone.
As for the developers license, I didn't say smart phone companies... I said developer programs. Adobe has one. Oracle, MS, many do and they are way more expensive than $99.
jeznav
Mar 30, 05:51 PM
Downloading now!
richard.mac
Apr 9, 08:41 PM
i worked it out as 288 using BODMAS order, or PEDMAS as you americans call it :P
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
good idea to use Wolfram, that thing is pretty insane, and even Google can do it! step it up OS X calculator! :D
EDIT: Spotlight is giving me 288.
oh! looks like you just need to add an asterisk
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.)
MacinDoc
Aug 4, 12:03 AM
Why not? They did it with the iBooks for quite some time...
Yes, but the G3 was a more power efficient chip than the G4, while the opposite is true of the Core vs the Core2. Apple should put Core2 chips in the MacBooks ASAP, if only for the power saving. And Apple should also try to maximize the percentage of its user base that is 64 bit capable prior to the release of OS X 10.5, which should be 64 bit.
Don't forget that when they ship, the Core2 chips will cost as much as the Core chips do now. So, if Apple doesn't upgrade the MacBooks to Core2 or drop their prices, it will start to look like it is less competitive in pricing again.
Yes, but the G3 was a more power efficient chip than the G4, while the opposite is true of the Core vs the Core2. Apple should put Core2 chips in the MacBooks ASAP, if only for the power saving. And Apple should also try to maximize the percentage of its user base that is 64 bit capable prior to the release of OS X 10.5, which should be 64 bit.
Don't forget that when they ship, the Core2 chips will cost as much as the Core chips do now. So, if Apple doesn't upgrade the MacBooks to Core2 or drop their prices, it will start to look like it is less competitive in pricing again.
nanofrog
Apr 29, 12:02 PM
Isn't Apple using usb connections for other hardware?
Likely (Bluetooth). But I don't see it accounting for the other 7 ports on the ICH.
On the PSU subject, since Transporteur confirms that there are no vents from the HDDs going into the PSU Area, the only thing that could justify moving the PSU to the bottom area of the case would be.. having the power cable closer to the ground :D lol
If you go back to post 187 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12447547&postcount=187) (very bottom), you'll see my take on baffles. ;)
The more recent post was based on the concept the baffle between the PCIe/HDD and PSU/ODD sections had vent slots in it (misinterpretation of a photo).
Likely (Bluetooth). But I don't see it accounting for the other 7 ports on the ICH.
On the PSU subject, since Transporteur confirms that there are no vents from the HDDs going into the PSU Area, the only thing that could justify moving the PSU to the bottom area of the case would be.. having the power cable closer to the ground :D lol
If you go back to post 187 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12447547&postcount=187) (very bottom), you'll see my take on baffles. ;)
The more recent post was based on the concept the baffle between the PCIe/HDD and PSU/ODD sections had vent slots in it (misinterpretation of a photo).
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:30 PM
Just gave the problem to my 12 year old brother. Yup, its 288. To all you people who still believe it's 2, I hope you don't deal with math a lot in your careers. It might also be a good idea for you to hire somebody else to do your taxes ;)
It's not surprising that we lose basic math skills that most people really don't need to use on a day to day basis.
It's not surprising that we lose basic math skills that most people really don't need to use on a day to day basis.
thejedipunk
Jul 30, 01:14 PM
Why on earth should Apple "go with" a company like Verizon or anybody else?
Just sell the phone unlocked and let anybody with GSM service pop their sim into their iPhone. Perhaps make an unlocked CDMA phone as well.
If they have it right with this phone and there is then therefor the sort of demand for it that we have seen for the iPod, the providers will be forced to offer it according to how Apple dictates (can put music on using computer, etc.), rather than disabling the phone to suit the company's marketing schemes, and the providers will offer it at a discount to attain/retain customers.
You guys seem to think that the service providers dictate what phones we use. Beyond having to be compatible with the network that we choose to use (GSM or CDMA), they don't. I haven't gotten a phone from a service provider for years as I need a phone that I can pop a sim into that is appropriate for whatever country I am in.
Exactly what I was thinking. Practically all phones are sold unlocked. There's no need to deal with the providers because all they have to do is provide reception for actual phone use. Perhaps it's possible for Apple to create their own wireless data network to access the net on the phone. It would be accessed via standard Wifi. Very similar to the Nintendo WiFi connection.
This is of course if the phone is real. Even if it was, it wouldn't be at WWDC. You people here take these rumors too serious. It's like a few others have mentioned: a tech-unsavvy photographer? Please. Photographers are the most tech-savvy people on earth. Especially considering that alot of them are indie-hipster art majors, they are obviously consumed in Apple products and the latest and greatest gear from Canon, Nikon and the like. And there has to have been an NDA. My analysis: Apple is spreading rumors just for ***** and giggles.
Just sell the phone unlocked and let anybody with GSM service pop their sim into their iPhone. Perhaps make an unlocked CDMA phone as well.
If they have it right with this phone and there is then therefor the sort of demand for it that we have seen for the iPod, the providers will be forced to offer it according to how Apple dictates (can put music on using computer, etc.), rather than disabling the phone to suit the company's marketing schemes, and the providers will offer it at a discount to attain/retain customers.
You guys seem to think that the service providers dictate what phones we use. Beyond having to be compatible with the network that we choose to use (GSM or CDMA), they don't. I haven't gotten a phone from a service provider for years as I need a phone that I can pop a sim into that is appropriate for whatever country I am in.
Exactly what I was thinking. Practically all phones are sold unlocked. There's no need to deal with the providers because all they have to do is provide reception for actual phone use. Perhaps it's possible for Apple to create their own wireless data network to access the net on the phone. It would be accessed via standard Wifi. Very similar to the Nintendo WiFi connection.
This is of course if the phone is real. Even if it was, it wouldn't be at WWDC. You people here take these rumors too serious. It's like a few others have mentioned: a tech-unsavvy photographer? Please. Photographers are the most tech-savvy people on earth. Especially considering that alot of them are indie-hipster art majors, they are obviously consumed in Apple products and the latest and greatest gear from Canon, Nikon and the like. And there has to have been an NDA. My analysis: Apple is spreading rumors just for ***** and giggles.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 08:56 AM
Redundant power supplies are generally not a standard feature for most x86 servers sold. It isn't a must (requirement); it is an optional feature need if want to sell to the relatively small subset of the market that wants them. (e.g, none of Google's, Microsoft's ,etc search/cloud servers have dual power supplies and they number in the many, many thousands. )
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
accessories Rayban/Ray-an
ray ban logo black. Ray-an
Metal frames with Ray-Ban logo
ray ban logo png. Ray+an+logo
Ray-Ban Original Wayfarer Red
ray ban logo black. Ray Ban
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
Mac-Rumours
May 4, 03:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
Copy it to a USB drive or disc. Why would you keep downloading it?
what makes you think that you can copy it to a USB drive or disc? I have disc for Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. None of those disc can be copied, some of them can only be used on their original machine (or the exact model). the past 3 OSes can't be copied, and so far there's nothing to suggest we can just make backup copies of Lion.
I have copied Tiger and Leopard with no problems. You need a double layer DVD.
If you are talking about not being able to install the OS that comes with a Mac to a different Mac that's because you're not supposed to. It's a single license. The OP was talking about installing a 5-user license.
Many people have already said in this thread that you can already easily move an app from one machine to another. You just need to log in with your iTunes/App Store account.
Copy it to a USB drive or disc. Why would you keep downloading it?
what makes you think that you can copy it to a USB drive or disc? I have disc for Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. None of those disc can be copied, some of them can only be used on their original machine (or the exact model). the past 3 OSes can't be copied, and so far there's nothing to suggest we can just make backup copies of Lion.
I have copied Tiger and Leopard with no problems. You need a double layer DVD.
If you are talking about not being able to install the OS that comes with a Mac to a different Mac that's because you're not supposed to. It's a single license. The OP was talking about installing a 5-user license.
Many people have already said in this thread that you can already easily move an app from one machine to another. You just need to log in with your iTunes/App Store account.
maggie-macrumor
Nov 18, 06:33 PM
That looks nice!
Is it possible that we can see more screen caps form the various map screens in this app? The one shown above doesn't give a real feel to the app at all. Maybe post them in the Magellan thread in this forum.
Thanks
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
Is it possible that we can see more screen caps form the various map screens in this app? The one shown above doesn't give a real feel to the app at all. Maybe post them in the Magellan thread in this forum.
Thanks
Hi SpaceKitty
We are currently working on getting additional screenshots for it. When they are ready, I will post them in the Official Magellan Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=823017) Thank you!
iMacZealot
Aug 6, 03:32 AM
Whats the normal run of events?
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
I agree with a lot of this, but I think most of it will be Leopard and the "one more thing" may be in a different spot. If the new product is a screen, it will go along with the ProMac. If it is, however, somehow integrated/featured in Leopard, it will most likely come at the end, but I doubt we'd see the iPhone tomorrow because it has nothing to do with developers and I doubt a new iPod will debut for another month or two (as usual) unless if it had some new feature in Leopard.
Also, quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they announced that Leopard will be coming pretty early (sometime maybe in november/december.) It's happened before.
Bottom line: most of it will be a preview of Leopard; basically it will be a rerun of WWDC 2004: new displays, new ProMacs, new OS.
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
I agree with a lot of this, but I think most of it will be Leopard and the "one more thing" may be in a different spot. If the new product is a screen, it will go along with the ProMac. If it is, however, somehow integrated/featured in Leopard, it will most likely come at the end, but I doubt we'd see the iPhone tomorrow because it has nothing to do with developers and I doubt a new iPod will debut for another month or two (as usual) unless if it had some new feature in Leopard.
Also, quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they announced that Leopard will be coming pretty early (sometime maybe in november/december.) It's happened before.
Bottom line: most of it will be a preview of Leopard; basically it will be a rerun of WWDC 2004: new displays, new ProMacs, new OS.
IntelliUser
Nov 28, 03:10 AM
awful program
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
I wouldn't mess with the Bootcamp partition, regardless of the AV.
http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
locked up my mac multiple times and possibly was the cause of my bootcamp partition getting completely ruined
was working fine until i ran this
I wouldn't mess with the Bootcamp partition, regardless of the AV.
http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Slow-down-when-scanning-Work-around-now-available/td-p/295
Tilpots
May 7, 01:46 PM
Is the size of Apple's NC Data Center overkill for just delivering MobileMe services? Or is that the type of facility they would need to bring it in-house with current subscribers?
freebooter
Sep 11, 01:06 AM
Actually, no, I believe it's more along the lines of an example of success breeding lots and lots and lots of admiring / eager people who want to attend their exclusive product showcases, and their resorting to excluding some people to keep such events from turning into crazed circuses.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
You have a point there. I certainly wouldn't want to attend. But I wasn't saying I would want to. Nor was I saying that any of the eager masses should be able to attend.
The original post by Macrumors implied that this site is shut out of such events. Shutting out representatives sites such as this, which do much to promote Apple products is, I think, to some degree arrogant and perhaps spiteful. This site likes to penetrate Apple's notorious secrecy.
Besides, I mean, who really wants to go to such an event, anyway? I'd rather just read about it on internet forums like this.
You have a point there. I certainly wouldn't want to attend. But I wasn't saying I would want to. Nor was I saying that any of the eager masses should be able to attend.
The original post by Macrumors implied that this site is shut out of such events. Shutting out representatives sites such as this, which do much to promote Apple products is, I think, to some degree arrogant and perhaps spiteful. This site likes to penetrate Apple's notorious secrecy.
Stridder44
Aug 4, 10:13 AM
I have been wondering the same thing. No matter how good the news is, there are still a bunch of negative votes. It just re-inforces my belief there is an organized effort to discredit Apple on this site. If it was just individuals, I would wonder why waste time on an Apple website if you did not like Apple? It makes no sense in that scenario. I do believe the PC establishment is worried about the possibility of Apple gaining more of a foothold in corporate America.
Downvoters have been around here and doing this exact thing for a loooooooooooooong time, this is nothing new. And everytime it happens someone comes in here asking "How could someone vote this a negative?!!?"
Again, not to pick you out of the crowd but Im just saying....these neg. voters are nothing new.
Downvoters have been around here and doing this exact thing for a loooooooooooooong time, this is nothing new. And everytime it happens someone comes in here asking "How could someone vote this a negative?!!?"
Again, not to pick you out of the crowd but Im just saying....these neg. voters are nothing new.
dukebound85
Mar 26, 09:33 PM
I didnt realize a release date was set:cool:
mtrctyjoe
Jul 30, 05:13 AM
Here is why the new super iPhone will come out next week - because I just locked into some $%^&^% life long contract with Sprint. They own me and my first born.
and I know Sprint will never have a cool phone in it's line up... so...
and I know Sprint will never have a cool phone in it's line up... so...
chugg
Apr 18, 03:30 PM
Wow, an article about Apple suing someone, that has more negatives than positives?
Thats probably a first.
Give it some time and watch the positives skyrocket by the end of the day. If this were an article about Microsoft suing somebody, it'd be all negatives.
Thats probably a first.
Give it some time and watch the positives skyrocket by the end of the day. If this were an article about Microsoft suing somebody, it'd be all negatives.
Jape
Nov 13, 09:36 AM
After hearing that they will delay shipping of the TomTom kit until December 2nd, I decided to give my local MacStore a call (not Apple Store). It was only $99.95 with no sales tax in Oregon. $10 more than Bottom Line Technologies, but I have the TomTom kit in my hands right now :)
What is the name of the store that you got it from? I'm curious to know if I could find one in my area
What is the name of the store that you got it from? I'm curious to know if I could find one in my area