Lesser Evets
Apr 11, 03:10 PM
It's a great step. I can't imagine needing more speed than a Thunderbolt connection, for the next decade, IMO. Most people don't specifically need such speed, but it is good to have. As for professional use for large files and video editing: boffo. Looks brilliant.
gameface
Apr 14, 04:53 PM
Had the day off today and it was beautiful so I took a walk down to Granary Burying Ground.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5620232962_6f7c4cb7f5_o.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5620232962_6f7c4cb7f5_o.jpg
LightSpeed1
May 3, 11:28 PM
Safe to say at this point we will have to wait. Man, I had that upgrade waiting. But then again, what's another three months to wait from the usual release date?
samcraig
Apr 29, 05:16 PM
I have to wonder how many people discussing audio quality buy their movies from iTunes vs Blu-Ray.
Just asking since apparently those people are so concerned with getting optimal performance from their media.
Not to take this off topic - but too many people have been duped by all the streaming serves and cable companies to believe they're getting a true HD experience when, in fact, they aren't because of the astronomical bitrate difference between what can be streamed vs delivered by hard media at current.
Just asking since apparently those people are so concerned with getting optimal performance from their media.
Not to take this off topic - but too many people have been duped by all the streaming serves and cable companies to believe they're getting a true HD experience when, in fact, they aren't because of the astronomical bitrate difference between what can be streamed vs delivered by hard media at current.
leekohler
Nov 8, 10:27 AM
I won't get it but:
jayducharme
May 3, 07:51 AM
Wow. Apple is gradually starting to push more aggressive pricing. $1200 for a quad-core iMac is pretty decent. I'm happy with my "old" i7 for now. But the next iMac upgrade should be pretty amazing. (8-core base model?)
mccldwll
Apr 28, 10:09 PM
Uh the fact that if you have a cellphone unless you want to pay for something that doesn't do what you want it to do, you are going to pay for a plan regardless so one really should not factor that in to the cost of the device (as it is assumed you are going to want cellphone service if you have a cellphone. And what cellphone you get does not affect the cost of your service so the service cost is irrelevant).
The point is it is silly to factor in a cost that you are going to pay no matter what phone you get as to the cost of the phone. The phone does not affect that cost and therefore it should not be factored in (the only way not to pay that cost is to buy a cellphone that doesn't do what it's suppose to since you have no service to use with it or to just not buy a cellphone).
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
The point is it is silly to factor in a cost that you are going to pay no matter what phone you get as to the cost of the phone. The phone does not affect that cost and therefore it should not be factored in (the only way not to pay that cost is to buy a cellphone that doesn't do what it's suppose to since you have no service to use with it or to just not buy a cellphone).
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
Willis
Oct 23, 08:22 AM
What a load of crap. People always make out Apple try and get your hard earned cash, but it seems nowadays its everyone else!
Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.
Pointless!
Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.
Pointless!
myamid
Nov 4, 08:10 AM
If it's taking you two minutes to resume a session and two minutes plus to suspend it, on that machine you mentioned the specs of, something is frickin' wrong with that machine.
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...
2.16 Core 2 Duo 20" iMac here, 2GB, stock 250GB drive, Parallels does the following:
- it cold starts in 4 seconds
- it boots my XP VM (512MB of RAM/8GB virtual hard disk) to the Desktop in 9
- it suspended that same XP VM in 14
- it restored that same XP VM in 11
And that's with Crossover for Mac running several Windows apps in the background too, so some of my resources are already drained when I fired up Parallels and the VM. Memory usage at the moment for the entire machine is sitting at 1154MB of 2048MB, 69 tasks, 330 threads as measured by MenuMeters.
So, give that box a tuneup or whatever, because you're certainly not getting the performance from Parallels that you should be getting. Also, check your VT-x flags under Parallels to make sure it's functioning properly.
btw, this is Parallels build 1970, the latest and greatest, and I've had nothing but positive usage of Parallels since I bought it off the shelf in an Apple Store along with this iMac a month ago. 3 upgrades so far, no issues at all.
bb
I get similar performance on my slighly slower iMac.... And my VM images are on a less than ideal external FW drive!!! I'll second the opinion that if your system is significatly slower than this with Parallels, there's something VERY wrong with your Mac...
Unorthodox
Oct 24, 07:48 AM
What's taking santa rose so long?
rdowns
Dec 29, 04:27 PM
Yes, and even I think this is weird, on two levels. One is the "watching her eat". The other is paying for the privilege. These guys could hang out at a mall food court or a Super Wal-Mart with an onsite restaurant and get their jollies for free on pretty much any given day.
Or just go to www.peopleofwalmart.com :D
I wonder what website the people who are in peopleofwalmart.com go to to make fun of people?
Or just go to www.peopleofwalmart.com :D
I wonder what website the people who are in peopleofwalmart.com go to to make fun of people?
Ubele
Apr 13, 02:32 PM
Every time a new product like this from Apple is rumored, it follows a predictable pattern: 1) People look at existing, entrenched offerings by other companies. 2) They assume Apple will add some slightly different functionality and charge a lot more money for the product, and ask, "How many people would pay a premium for something just because it has the Apple logo and does a couple more things than existing products? And why would Apple enter that market, anyway?" 3) Steve Jobs says that Apple has no plans to enter that market. ("Nobody watches TV anymore. Everyone is reading books on their iPads.") 3) Apple announces that it is indeed entering that market, with a magical, game-changing product. 4) People still assume it will be an over-priced slight variation on existing products and predict that it will be an epic fail. 5) Apple releases the product, which is radically different in some ways from anything else that's out there, and/or offers a user experience that is significantly more refined than anything else that's out there. 6) People line up in droves to buy it, and sales go through the roof. 7) The people who predicted it would be an epic fail were among the first in line to buy it (unless they're waiting for the Android version that will come out a year later), and now they're whining that it's been six months already, and there have been no rumors about what might be in rev 2 of the product, which was great in its day but is now getting stale.
In other words, I believe this rumor is credible only if Apple has some new take on the television set that none of us are even guessing at yet. I highly doubt they'd release a conventional TV with only the guts of the AppleTV added to it.
In other words, I believe this rumor is credible only if Apple has some new take on the television set that none of us are even guessing at yet. I highly doubt they'd release a conventional TV with only the guts of the AppleTV added to it.
shawnce
Jul 21, 11:18 AM
Lets hope this is a start of solid trend (I believe it is) but don't be surprised if the market share numbers are a little bumpy (up and down) as they inch their way up... Apple has relatively few products (compared to their main competition in this market) and as a result their product release cycles can contribute a lot of variability into quarterly market share numbers and depending how they line up with seasonal market aspects you can get even more variability.
In other words (as I have said before) look for trends not point to point comparisons.
In other words (as I have said before) look for trends not point to point comparisons.
Glass
Jul 11, 03:48 PM
They will. Microsoft doing this will definitely cause Apple to be less stingy with the R&D and get some great small products to market.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
Kyffin
Oct 23, 12:02 PM
^ This
Small White Car
May 3, 11:33 PM
1) Is this a permanent move to a Fall Release of the iPhone?
I'm guessing 'yes' simply because I think "Because they want it to be in the fall" is the one reason for moving it that makes the most sense to me. I think that's the whole point.
3) Does this affect the timing of iOS's release, which has traditionally been released with the new iPhone and has been centered around the iPhone's hardware?
I have less reason to believe it, but I sure hope that iOS 5 still comes out in the summer. I'd like to see iOS updates divorced from hardware updates, just like it is with the Mac.
I'm guessing 'yes' simply because I think "Because they want it to be in the fall" is the one reason for moving it that makes the most sense to me. I think that's the whole point.
3) Does this affect the timing of iOS's release, which has traditionally been released with the new iPhone and has been centered around the iPhone's hardware?
I have less reason to believe it, but I sure hope that iOS 5 still comes out in the summer. I'd like to see iOS updates divorced from hardware updates, just like it is with the Mac.
benhollberg
May 1, 11:06 PM
Once again, The Internet > 'major' news sites
Twitter is the best news organization.
Twitter is the best news organization.
TonyC28
Apr 13, 07:58 PM
Ha...who cares anymore??
spencers
Oct 21, 10:06 PM
I spoil myself rotten during the year, which usually leaves me with nothing of interest for the holidays.
1) So like last year, clothes are the main thing on my list. Just essential everyday type stuff from J.Crew.
2) A nice road bike would be a plus, too. ;)
I typed in road bike on google images and this one looks swell.
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5018/bikeyc.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/bikeyc.jpg/)
3) And lastly, acceptance into a nice graduate program.
Thanks santa!
1) So like last year, clothes are the main thing on my list. Just essential everyday type stuff from J.Crew.
2) A nice road bike would be a plus, too. ;)
I typed in road bike on google images and this one looks swell.
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5018/bikeyc.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/bikeyc.jpg/)
3) And lastly, acceptance into a nice graduate program.
Thanks santa!
28monkeys
Mar 29, 09:36 AM
will be more surprise if it's not full.
johnthevulcan
Jul 26, 03:07 AM
Wonders though how close you'd have to be, i mean if it is a few inches or less it is still a touch screen and the sillys will touch it anyway, but can you blame them it is an iPod. How can you not touch, even if youre not supposed to:) :) :)
Surely
Sep 14, 11:36 AM
^^^^^^^ Pffft..... noob. I gots me a gold card. :D
Bubba Satori
Mar 31, 12:58 PM
Um, whats up with the brown turd toolbar? :eek:
Well, it's a thin and sleek iTurd. Magic.
Well, it's a thin and sleek iTurd. Magic.
DeathChill
Apr 22, 10:25 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yargggh me crappy ATT! Who cares data speed isn't really the weakpoint right now.
Image (http://www.speedtest.net/iphone/89711689.png)
That's not even possible, is it? I thought the iPhone is capped by hardware at 7.2 Mbps?
Yargggh me crappy ATT! Who cares data speed isn't really the weakpoint right now.
Image (http://www.speedtest.net/iphone/89711689.png)
That's not even possible, is it? I thought the iPhone is capped by hardware at 7.2 Mbps?
0 comments:
Post a Comment