Multimedia
Sep 16, 12:19 AM
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes:Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes:Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
KnightWRX
May 6, 06:52 AM
Google is allready running their data centres on ARM based servers
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
alent1234
Mar 28, 11:28 AM
Might like to point out that part of the problem with Android updates is not the manufactures but the Carriers.
AT&T being by far the worse offenders. If AT&T had its way the iPhone would never get more than security updates. To upgrade your OS you would have to buy a new phone.
This is no were more apparent that looking no farther than the GalaxyS phones. AT&T GalaxyS phone (Captivate) still is waiting on its Android 2.2 update when over seas it is already getting its Android 2.3 updated. Clearly it is not the manufacture causing problems but the carrier.
I hope the manufactures start taking a cue from Apple and MS to say screw the carriers and start supply updates for their phones. No more blocking the updates from the carriers.
Apple is about the only company that can get away with the delay. Most others would be fried for it. iPhone is already starting to show its age and delaying it longer will only make it worse.
wasn't that samsung's fault with the custom UI they put on the phone and issues with 2.3?
AT&T being by far the worse offenders. If AT&T had its way the iPhone would never get more than security updates. To upgrade your OS you would have to buy a new phone.
This is no were more apparent that looking no farther than the GalaxyS phones. AT&T GalaxyS phone (Captivate) still is waiting on its Android 2.2 update when over seas it is already getting its Android 2.3 updated. Clearly it is not the manufacture causing problems but the carrier.
I hope the manufactures start taking a cue from Apple and MS to say screw the carriers and start supply updates for their phones. No more blocking the updates from the carriers.
Apple is about the only company that can get away with the delay. Most others would be fried for it. iPhone is already starting to show its age and delaying it longer will only make it worse.
wasn't that samsung's fault with the custom UI they put on the phone and issues with 2.3?
gorgeousninja
Apr 18, 04:52 PM
I remember first seeing the GalaxyS and it's such a blatant rip-off of Apple's design they have every right to sue on this..
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
spotlight07
May 4, 09:09 PM
To everyone afraid that they wouldn't be able to do a fresh reinstall, how about a bootable Mac App Store recovery partition!
fishmoose
Apr 18, 05:03 PM
Samsung has been copying Apple for years, serves them right they got served. With that said Apple probably won't win the lawsuit.
shigzeo
Apr 24, 10:24 PM
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
It makes no difference at all. If the video card can render the 2D graphics at native retina resolution, that is all that matters. Keeping the same ratio of X and Y pixels means that the game (as has always been the case) determines what resolution you play in. I doubt we'll see games go that high for at least a few years.
The high resolution is great for everything else: reading, editing photos, etc., but requires a graphics card that can output very high 2D resolution with no corollary retardation.
Games are completely different and shouldn't be a concern by any serious gamer, at all. They simply don't relate to the monitor's resolution as much as they do the ratio of x and y pixels in order to keep lower resolutions from distorting.
MacVault
Aug 7, 03:23 PM
I read a comment on Maccentral from someone saying they were going to wait for a "true" dual processor. What is not true about the Mac Pro configuration? Or did that poster not know what he was talking about?
bigandy
Jul 29, 08:46 PM
i'm betting it will be introduced by apple's special flying pig. :rolleyes:
corywoolf
Nov 22, 09:22 AM
i think they would be cutting their profits to a certain age group of potential buyers
I completely disagree. Apple would reach a larger audience with a candy-bar style phone that is sub $250. If they can just release an inexpensive version and a souped up version shortly after, they could really kill Palm.
I completely disagree. Apple would reach a larger audience with a candy-bar style phone that is sub $250. If they can just release an inexpensive version and a souped up version shortly after, they could really kill Palm.
hyperpasta
Jul 21, 01:53 PM
Niice. I would assume that they forgo using the 2.0 GHz chip though. Right now, their lineup is pretty solid using two different speeds. Unless the modify the structure of the lineup (as in lower prices), I think it would make sense.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:03 AM
At least it works on the market leading platform. ;)
jackie kennedy wedding gown.
jackie kennedy wedding pics.
jackie kennedy wedding gown.
Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy
jackie kennedy wedding dress
of Jacqueline Kennedy
jackie kennedy wedding gown.
nastebu
Mar 29, 03:39 PM
Always looking at the negative side of things. Maybe a little radiation will lead to higher power densities.
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
These jokes just aren't funny.
It's too early for this. Maybe it will never not be too early for this, but please have some sensitivity for people who have friends/family/are themselves in affected areas.
Actually, Japanese companies manufacturing products in Japan is extremely inefficient due to the high cost, and due primarily to protectionism and racial pride. The Japanese domestic market is known for being highly inefficient.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Eddyisgreat
Apr 7, 02:58 PM
But if Apple becomes the dominant player because, heck, they're so big that they can simply BUY THEIR WAY to the top, then that's not really fair for anybody, is it?
Is this a joke? It's a freaking tablet not medicine or baby supplies. How the fudge do they buy their way to the top? Do they coerce customers to buy them? WOW. REALLY?
If the lamebook or whatever the heck was that hot RIM would have no problem finding production.
Is this a joke? It's a freaking tablet not medicine or baby supplies. How the fudge do they buy their way to the top? Do they coerce customers to buy them? WOW. REALLY?
If the lamebook or whatever the heck was that hot RIM would have no problem finding production.
SandynJosh
Nov 26, 04:29 PM
The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with.
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with.
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Reach9
Apr 20, 01:49 AM
Please site sources of when has Apple cared about staying ahead of an artificial market. I am trying to think of a time and they never really cared. They bring out what works when it works and that is why they do so well without having to have 100 products out all the time.
Every company cares about the market, and the market is very real. Basic economics, a college course should suffice. Apple is no different. Otherwise, why did Apple add Retina Display? Why did Apple add an A5 processor on the iPad 2? Why did Apple push for A4?
Apple always compares themselves with the competition, it's illogical to think that Apple doesn't care about the market.
Regarding the OP, i'm really hoping for a larger screen, or something which will entice customers, Apple wants to get everyone even people with iPhone 4's to upgrade.
Every company cares about the market, and the market is very real. Basic economics, a college course should suffice. Apple is no different. Otherwise, why did Apple add Retina Display? Why did Apple add an A5 processor on the iPad 2? Why did Apple push for A4?
Apple always compares themselves with the competition, it's illogical to think that Apple doesn't care about the market.
Regarding the OP, i'm really hoping for a larger screen, or something which will entice customers, Apple wants to get everyone even people with iPhone 4's to upgrade.
Lord Bodak
Mar 28, 10:56 AM
Not as far as 95% of users are concerned. Most users don't utilize half of what the current device can do.
That might be true, but most people I know walk in to their cell phone stores every 2 years and buy whatever is new. Many of them will choose a new Android or WP7 phone over a year-old iPhone, simply because the guy at the store says "this just came out."
As long as Apple is in bed with carriers on the standard two-year contract, they have to stick to a 12 or 24 month product cycle. 24 months is too long, which leaves the current 12 month cycle.
Personally I think this is all FUD. iPhone 5 will be an incremental upgrade, like the 3GS was, and it will be announced at WWDC. Because it's a fairly small upgrade compared to the other big items of the year (Lion, iOS 5, and likely new Macs with more of a focus on SSD), there will be less talk about it in advance of the event.
That might be true, but most people I know walk in to their cell phone stores every 2 years and buy whatever is new. Many of them will choose a new Android or WP7 phone over a year-old iPhone, simply because the guy at the store says "this just came out."
As long as Apple is in bed with carriers on the standard two-year contract, they have to stick to a 12 or 24 month product cycle. 24 months is too long, which leaves the current 12 month cycle.
Personally I think this is all FUD. iPhone 5 will be an incremental upgrade, like the 3GS was, and it will be announced at WWDC. Because it's a fairly small upgrade compared to the other big items of the year (Lion, iOS 5, and likely new Macs with more of a focus on SSD), there will be less talk about it in advance of the event.
Chundles
Sep 11, 06:52 AM
To recap:
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The first rule of an Apple Event: You never get all the marbles.
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The first rule of an Apple Event: You never get all the marbles.
GregA
Nov 28, 03:16 PM
Of course this so called tablet could be several different things � a true video iPod, a supered up remote, a UMCP based micro mac. I just find it fun to speculate based on the info at hand:)
Absolutely. :)
That was why I asked... you were speculating on a full Mac, but in a tablet form. In contrast to a new (and cheaper) device in tablet form (which might appeal to me).
Apple has the mind share and technology to create any new products which fit somewhere between iPods and Macs. The iTV is an excellent example. Will they release some form of Tablet? I think a MacTablet will experience similar popularity to existing tablets. As such, I think a Tablet-Pod (or iTablet or iPad or something) is more likely from Apple and opens more possibilities... I'm not confident they'll release anything SOON though :)
Absolutely. :)
That was why I asked... you were speculating on a full Mac, but in a tablet form. In contrast to a new (and cheaper) device in tablet form (which might appeal to me).
Apple has the mind share and technology to create any new products which fit somewhere between iPods and Macs. The iTV is an excellent example. Will they release some form of Tablet? I think a MacTablet will experience similar popularity to existing tablets. As such, I think a Tablet-Pod (or iTablet or iPad or something) is more likely from Apple and opens more possibilities... I'm not confident they'll release anything SOON though :)
Popeye206
May 4, 05:26 PM
I'm guessing greedy Apple will probably keep 30% of the sales too! :rolleyes:
Tailpike1153
Apr 21, 02:36 PM
I want to believe! (X-files reference). The death of the xServe made me a little sad. Glad to see that Apple is trying to work out alternatives. I realize that MacPro isn't a "proper" server but it does have more expansion capablities than the xServe. Perhaps the MacPro Serve 2011/2012 will give us faith in Apple.
Floris
Apr 20, 01:41 AM
I honestly can not imagine why.
This is the 3gs to the 3th gen iPhone?
Man, imagine just buying one from verizon, don't you feel f* for not waiting a month.
Useless for them to release another one this year. Enjoy the spoils of everybody buying it. And release a 'real worthy' upgrade to iPhone5 for early 2012 release.
This is the 3gs to the 3th gen iPhone?
Man, imagine just buying one from verizon, don't you feel f* for not waiting a month.
Useless for them to release another one this year. Enjoy the spoils of everybody buying it. And release a 'real worthy' upgrade to iPhone5 for early 2012 release.
manic
Aug 11, 01:18 PM
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
I guess your point is that Apple agrees with YOU, right?
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
I guess your point is that Apple agrees with YOU, right?
joeboy_45101
Aug 4, 09:05 AM
Where does this leave Conroe and Allendale? Apple's marketing strategy has always been that the PowerBooks (MacBook Pro) have faster processers then any of the iMac offerings. The Conroe and Allendale (Desktop) chips run faster then the Merom (Mobile) chips.
So when Apple does ugrade the iMac is it going to use the desktop processer or the mobile one? If it uses the Conroe and Allendale chips it risks breaking it's arbitrary rule of keeping the iMac slower than the PowerBook (MacBook); on the other hand, if Apple decides to use the Merom chips in the iMac then the iMac will be slow compared to offerings by other companies, who would be using the faster Conroe or Allendale chips.
I think Apple should ditch it's old, worn-out marketing strategies. Who cares if the iMac is faster than the MacBook, it's not like I can carry around an iMac or sit it on my lap. The MacBook is portable power, the iMac is affordable power!
So when Apple does ugrade the iMac is it going to use the desktop processer or the mobile one? If it uses the Conroe and Allendale chips it risks breaking it's arbitrary rule of keeping the iMac slower than the PowerBook (MacBook); on the other hand, if Apple decides to use the Merom chips in the iMac then the iMac will be slow compared to offerings by other companies, who would be using the faster Conroe or Allendale chips.
I think Apple should ditch it's old, worn-out marketing strategies. Who cares if the iMac is faster than the MacBook, it's not like I can carry around an iMac or sit it on my lap. The MacBook is portable power, the iMac is affordable power!
No comments:
Post a Comment