gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
RaceTripper
Jan 22, 09:17 PM
They make racing and sport seats
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:45 PM
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
Uh...so just being black and green means 'consumer' now? :confused:
Uh...so just being black and green means 'consumer' now? :confused:
iGav
Mar 7, 03:05 PM
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
I think that's probably accurate, general apathy on all sides really isn't it.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini.
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost� it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
It's entirely possible to turn a brand around of course, as VW demonstrated with �koda, it's only 15 years ago that �koda was still the punchline to almost every joke.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome� lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
the Daewoo -> Chevrolet re-branding in europe has been more or less the best business move GM has made perhaps in the last decade
Doesn't say much really does it. ;)
I think you highlight the real issue in the rest of your post. But it doesn't just affect Opel. And that is perhaps GM's biggest problem of all.
which is in a contrast to the japanese/korean brands which in europe over the last few years streamlined a lot: nearly all brands stopped offering premium sedans or upper market offerings and rather concentrated on SUVs/ crossovers and small offroaders and small minivans, compacts or small hatchbacks
It's not really streamlining when you have something like 6 suv/off-roaders in your range a'la Nissan is it? ;)
GM is doing reasonably well in Asia, and they have placed much of their small-car design duties into the capable hands of the Koreans - a wise move in my opinion.
Not if the Spark is anything to go by. Fortunately as the i10 proves, being Korean isn't the problem. ;)
I think blame can be put on both sides.
Yeah, but mainly GM for getting themselves into such a god almighty mess in the first place. ;)
The Buick Regal is the Opel Insignia( I love the US media. Before the Regal came out in the US, they went over to Europe and drove it and they loved it. Then they drive it on US shores, and all of a sudden they start panning it? ).
That'll be the marshmallows they use to replace the springs to make it a little softer for the yanks. :D
it wasn't a bad car.
It wasn't. You really don't want to think what today's hatches would be like if that car never existed. It really was that good. And its impact really was that great.
In typical bad Ford fashion
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
I think that's probably accurate, general apathy on all sides really isn't it.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini.
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost� it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
It's entirely possible to turn a brand around of course, as VW demonstrated with �koda, it's only 15 years ago that �koda was still the punchline to almost every joke.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome� lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
the Daewoo -> Chevrolet re-branding in europe has been more or less the best business move GM has made perhaps in the last decade
Doesn't say much really does it. ;)
I think you highlight the real issue in the rest of your post. But it doesn't just affect Opel. And that is perhaps GM's biggest problem of all.
which is in a contrast to the japanese/korean brands which in europe over the last few years streamlined a lot: nearly all brands stopped offering premium sedans or upper market offerings and rather concentrated on SUVs/ crossovers and small offroaders and small minivans, compacts or small hatchbacks
It's not really streamlining when you have something like 6 suv/off-roaders in your range a'la Nissan is it? ;)
GM is doing reasonably well in Asia, and they have placed much of their small-car design duties into the capable hands of the Koreans - a wise move in my opinion.
Not if the Spark is anything to go by. Fortunately as the i10 proves, being Korean isn't the problem. ;)
I think blame can be put on both sides.
Yeah, but mainly GM for getting themselves into such a god almighty mess in the first place. ;)
The Buick Regal is the Opel Insignia( I love the US media. Before the Regal came out in the US, they went over to Europe and drove it and they loved it. Then they drive it on US shores, and all of a sudden they start panning it? ).
That'll be the marshmallows they use to replace the springs to make it a little softer for the yanks. :D
it wasn't a bad car.
It wasn't. You really don't want to think what today's hatches would be like if that car never existed. It really was that good. And its impact really was that great.
In typical bad Ford fashion
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
Horrortaxi
Mar 19, 01:39 AM
What people don't understand is that Apple is dying....
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead. I love my Macintoshes but Apple needs market share to grow !
Apple needs customers, Apple needs to start thinking out of their little 5% market share. The Ipod was a good example but you can't keep on counting on people to buy it. For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
We need a cheap Mac to bring in new Customers. Maybe its their first Mac experience.
This sounds like a conversation straight out of 1990. Apple vs. IBM--come on!
Apple is not going anywhere anytime soon. Whether their market share is 5%, 2%, or 15% is irrelevant. They make a profit. That will keep them around. Who says you have to oppressively dominate the field to stay in business? Okay, who besides Bill Gates?
You have the software thing backward. Safari and Final Cut Pro existed (and did dominate on the Mac platform) before Microsoft and Adobe pulled the plugs in thier products.
We do not need a cheap Mac. One of the things I love about the Mac is that you don't have the option to buy a piece of crap.
WOMBAT indeed!
Everyone is buying IBMs and if Apple doesn't do something then they are dead. I love my Macintoshes but Apple needs market share to grow !
Apple needs customers, Apple needs to start thinking out of their little 5% market share. The Ipod was a good example but you can't keep on counting on people to buy it. For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
We need a cheap Mac to bring in new Customers. Maybe its their first Mac experience.
This sounds like a conversation straight out of 1990. Apple vs. IBM--come on!
Apple is not going anywhere anytime soon. Whether their market share is 5%, 2%, or 15% is irrelevant. They make a profit. That will keep them around. Who says you have to oppressively dominate the field to stay in business? Okay, who besides Bill Gates?
You have the software thing backward. Safari and Final Cut Pro existed (and did dominate on the Mac platform) before Microsoft and Adobe pulled the plugs in thier products.
We do not need a cheap Mac. One of the things I love about the Mac is that you don't have the option to buy a piece of crap.
WOMBAT indeed!
FrenchMac
Jan 12, 08:28 AM
The most obvious reason behind the name MacBook Air for me is the removal of the wired Ethernet connector to the MacBook. There is two thing that prevent from making a very slim notebook: an optical drive and an ethernet connector (look at the ethernet connector on a MacBook, it take most of the height of the notebook).
So the MacBook Air would be the first Apple notebook having only a wireless connection...
And I agree that it will be made of aluminium...
FrenchMac
So the MacBook Air would be the first Apple notebook having only a wireless connection...
And I agree that it will be made of aluminium...
FrenchMac
FireStar
Oct 23, 08:45 AM
Ok bought the Skullcandy Slider and the buttons are extremely hard to get to. You really have to dig deep to get in there. Part of it is because there's no tapering on the case around the buttons. It actually tapers the wrong way, blocking the buttons instead of the revealing it! When you pull out you earphone plugs, the bottom piece also comes out a little bit. I really want to keep this cause it's so badass looking, but those 2 things are deal breakers. It's going back tomorrow.
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8062/crw3104.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9417/crw3105.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5307/crw3107.jpg
Oh... It doesn't have.... playthrough, I think.... buttons.
hello everyone..i have bought a new ipod touch and i want a case to cover it and to provide protection from scratches.please can anyone suggest me.
It would matter on how much you would like to spend on your case?
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8062/crw3104.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9417/crw3105.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5307/crw3107.jpg
Oh... It doesn't have.... playthrough, I think.... buttons.
hello everyone..i have bought a new ipod touch and i want a case to cover it and to provide protection from scratches.please can anyone suggest me.
It would matter on how much you would like to spend on your case?
EagerDragon
Oct 23, 06:16 PM
At this rate the PowerBook G5 will be here before the Merom.
ipedro
Apr 12, 10:26 PM
You're not taking into account that the price is for FCP X alone, not the whole suite of app's
In fact I was. I said Final Cut Pro should sell for around $300, not Final Cut Studio.
- iMovie for the general public.
- Final Cut Pro for those who want more control ranging from the semi-pro to the big movie studio.
I'm guessing that the other apps will be announced as part of Final Cut Studio before FCP comes out of beta or you'll be able to buy those apps as standalone in the app store.
In fact I was. I said Final Cut Pro should sell for around $300, not Final Cut Studio.
- iMovie for the general public.
- Final Cut Pro for those who want more control ranging from the semi-pro to the big movie studio.
I'm guessing that the other apps will be announced as part of Final Cut Studio before FCP comes out of beta or you'll be able to buy those apps as standalone in the app store.
RayLancer
Sep 30, 03:40 PM
did u get that weird watermarks like on wolfboy's post a few posts up?
I don't have the cases on me, I just got it this morning before heading to work. I'll be sure to post back. The cases are cheap for $4 each and I'm planning on replacing them at some point soon.
I don't have the cases on me, I just got it this morning before heading to work. I'll be sure to post back. The cases are cheap for $4 each and I'm planning on replacing them at some point soon.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:56 AM
Ah, great to see another person in their 30s who still very much enjoys the freedom and pleasures of the road. :D
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
crashnburn
Mar 26, 03:51 PM
Awesome news, I recomend the ATI 5870. It can be found for only $200 and it more than holds it's own against the latest and greatest from Nvidia and ATI. It's only 6 percent slower than a 6950. The 6950 on the other hand can be flashed to a 6970 quite easily but it costs abot $260.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
BRLawyer
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
Would definitely be great if they would just support off-the-shelf graphics cards. I'd be a little surprised, but I've given up saying that Apple will or won't do something just because of their prior decisions.
jW
Well, it seems like the fabled xMac is finally coming for some... :rolleyes:
jW
Well, it seems like the fabled xMac is finally coming for some... :rolleyes:
surroundfan
Sep 6, 07:34 AM
New Mac Minis have landed. Core Duo 1.66 and 1.83. Otherwise the same...
160GB HDD option though. Just the thing for a media centre...
160GB HDD option though. Just the thing for a media centre...
Tonsko
Jan 7, 10:29 AM
I'm hanging onto my MkIV (daily driver) for now - in the vain hope that it will eventually start to go up in value. What's your read on that? What makes me think that is that they will be a future classic, and that there were only 2000-odd brought into the UK in the first place. I could just be pissing in the wind, however. :D
Having said that, the fuel cost is a sting. The g/f has also decided she wants to be driven to the church in it on our wedding day. Haha!
Having said that, the fuel cost is a sting. The g/f has also decided she wants to be driven to the church in it on our wedding day. Haha!
iMikeT
Nov 28, 05:00 PM
How much money can Microsoft possibly dump into trying to destroy Apple?
Evangelion
Jul 20, 04:33 AM
I believe Nokia and Microsoft have some sort of alliance.
Not quite. Yes, Nokia did announce a while ago that they will support MS's mobile-email-thingy. But that's it. Other than that, the two are more or less mortal enemies.
Not quite. Yes, Nokia did announce a while ago that they will support MS's mobile-email-thingy. But that's it. Other than that, the two are more or less mortal enemies.
Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 7, 01:51 AM
Wouldn't that mean that Adium needs the upgrade? ;-)
iChat needs a upgrade, the only reason I ever use it is because Aduim doesnt do video!
iChat needs a upgrade, the only reason I ever use it is because Aduim doesnt do video!
MattSepeta
May 2, 05:42 PM
Another iOS feature implemented in a desktop OS.
Fan-frickin-tastic :(
Fan-frickin-tastic :(
lordonuthin
Mar 18, 01:30 PM
ill try my best to explain haha.
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
jettredmont
Apr 12, 09:52 PM
Who thinks that they'll eliminate Final Cut Express and lower the price of Final Cut Pro? iMovie seems to serve the "express crowd" while FCP would be within reach of the semi-pro demographic if the price were around $300.
That would be a good move, but I'm not convinced Apple would do it. I think it's fairly likely that Final Cut Express goes away, perhaps replaced with mid-priced Final Cut components (ie, pieces of the Final Cut Studio package).
Should know soon enough though (at least on FCP pricing structure; FCE has always lagged behind FCP since it first came out).
That would be a good move, but I'm not convinced Apple would do it. I think it's fairly likely that Final Cut Express goes away, perhaps replaced with mid-priced Final Cut components (ie, pieces of the Final Cut Studio package).
Should know soon enough though (at least on FCP pricing structure; FCE has always lagged behind FCP since it first came out).
way2l84sanity
Jul 18, 02:01 AM
Does this mean a new Video Ipod will be releaed also at the WWDC??
and if the rumors are true about the mac pro being announced also, that's alot of new goodies from Steve.
I don't like the rental model, it could find it's way into the music downloads. A $9.99 movie download at good quailty would be realy attractive. (too own)
and if the rumors are true about the mac pro being announced also, that's alot of new goodies from Steve.
I don't like the rental model, it could find it's way into the music downloads. A $9.99 movie download at good quailty would be realy attractive. (too own)
jgould
Feb 23, 06:30 PM
MacBook Pro 2.16GHz C2D with Dell U2211H (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-9271).
Visidec monitor arm (http://www.amazon.com/Visidec-Articulated-Monitor-Support-Displays/dp/B001M4HF3I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502587&sr=8-1) and laptop arm (http://www.amazon.com/Visidec-VF-AT-NK-Monitor-Displays-Polished/dp/B002UJVIA0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502587&sr=8-3).
Macally ICEKEY Keyboard (http://www.amazon.com/Macally-USB-Slim-Keyboard-ICEKEY/dp/B00006HYP6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1298502832&sr=8-1) with Logitech mouse (this (http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-910-001204-Corded-Mouse-M500/dp/B002B3YCQM/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502892&sr=8-14) is the current version of it).
Galant desk (http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/S39837008) from IKEA.
Other things include juggling balls, dry-erase markers, an iPhone, and a card from my grandmother.
Nice and simple. That's what I really should do is arm mount the display and MacBook... *ponders this* Can you still get to the optical drive in the MBP?
Edit: I'm looking at Amazon right now, do you have to have two arms for the way you have everything mounted? I'm thinking that the answer is yes.
Visidec monitor arm (http://www.amazon.com/Visidec-Articulated-Monitor-Support-Displays/dp/B001M4HF3I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502587&sr=8-1) and laptop arm (http://www.amazon.com/Visidec-VF-AT-NK-Monitor-Displays-Polished/dp/B002UJVIA0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502587&sr=8-3).
Macally ICEKEY Keyboard (http://www.amazon.com/Macally-USB-Slim-Keyboard-ICEKEY/dp/B00006HYP6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1298502832&sr=8-1) with Logitech mouse (this (http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-910-001204-Corded-Mouse-M500/dp/B002B3YCQM/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1298502892&sr=8-14) is the current version of it).
Galant desk (http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/S39837008) from IKEA.
Other things include juggling balls, dry-erase markers, an iPhone, and a card from my grandmother.
Nice and simple. That's what I really should do is arm mount the display and MacBook... *ponders this* Can you still get to the optical drive in the MBP?
Edit: I'm looking at Amazon right now, do you have to have two arms for the way you have everything mounted? I'm thinking that the answer is yes.
4God
Nov 27, 03:26 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards.
Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"
Exactly, as someone here said earlier, "the 20" is the new 17"
No comments:
Post a Comment