Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
amac4me
Jul 19, 05:12 PM
Great quarter for Apple!
The introduction of the MacBook during the quarter really helped to drive Macintosh sales. The dip in desktop sales can be explained by the PowerMac (G5 processors) Once Apple releases the Intel powered PowerMac, there will be a dramatic increase in Macintosh desktop sales.
Apple is doing very well right now and I expect Macintosh sales to really spike as we head into the holiday shopping season.
Can anyone say increased "Market Share"?
:D :D :D
The introduction of the MacBook during the quarter really helped to drive Macintosh sales. The dip in desktop sales can be explained by the PowerMac (G5 processors) Once Apple releases the Intel powered PowerMac, there will be a dramatic increase in Macintosh desktop sales.
Apple is doing very well right now and I expect Macintosh sales to really spike as we head into the holiday shopping season.
Can anyone say increased "Market Share"?
:D :D :D
Unspeaked
Nov 28, 11:33 AM
I know that it's not quite fair to compare the two right out of the launch (a baby product versus a mature one), but MS didn't help themselves by setting up this product to compete directly with the iPod. If they had tried to target a different market (maybe primarily video as opposed to music), they might have more success, and let the hype build from there. But the way they seem to be playing it now, they're going to just throw a lot of money into something that will be in Apple's shadow. It'll offer a compelling alternative to some, but will not necessarily convince too many to become switchers. :p
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
Wow. Substitute "Mac OS" for "Zune" and "Windows" for "iPod" and that could have been any random post on Mac Rumors from the last five years!
;)
hulugu
May 2, 12:06 AM
latin is dead ! Long live Apple
Deader than the hobnails on a centurian's boot, but actually much of English grammar is derived, sometimes mistakely, from Latin forms so it's not a complete waste of time.
Okay maybe it it, but now I know what ergo sum propter means and that quid pro quo is actually gibberish.
Deader than the hobnails on a centurian's boot, but actually much of English grammar is derived, sometimes mistakely, from Latin forms so it's not a complete waste of time.
Okay maybe it it, but now I know what ergo sum propter means and that quid pro quo is actually gibberish.
�algiris
May 3, 02:32 AM
So, you're saying that windows programs don't leave files on your computer when uninstalled? Installing and uninstalling a bunch of programs don't make your windows PC slow down? I must be using the wrong programs. Not that I'm saying that Mac's are perfect, but worse than windows? I hope not (I'm not a mac user... Yet)
If you just move app to the Trash on a Mac it will leave just few folders and plists (settings files) usually and since Mac OS X doesn't have something that works as Registry on Windows it won't slow down anything.
Apple could have adressed this problem by simply popping up a window when you drad a programm icon to the trash asking you if you want to delete just this programm or uninstall all of its data.
This is not a final Lion version. It would make sense at least for MAS apps.
Poor lion has to accommodate all these iOS features. I'll stay with snow leopard.
Does this feature hurt you in any way, does it cripple OS? Do you not like out of the box option to delete app with it's settings at least for MAS apps? That's just pathetic.
If you just move app to the Trash on a Mac it will leave just few folders and plists (settings files) usually and since Mac OS X doesn't have something that works as Registry on Windows it won't slow down anything.
Apple could have adressed this problem by simply popping up a window when you drad a programm icon to the trash asking you if you want to delete just this programm or uninstall all of its data.
This is not a final Lion version. It would make sense at least for MAS apps.
Poor lion has to accommodate all these iOS features. I'll stay with snow leopard.
Does this feature hurt you in any way, does it cripple OS? Do you not like out of the box option to delete app with it's settings at least for MAS apps? That's just pathetic.
Benjy91
Mar 28, 11:05 AM
you think? I suspect we'll see an announcement next year and a release in 2013 actually for the 360, the PS4 will probably be 2015. The 'WIIHD" or whatever it' called might be announced this year.........
Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span.
Microsoft announced the Kinect would extend the life of the 360 by 5 years, and PS3 launched with the intention of a 10 year life span.
Zoddino
Mar 31, 11:48 AM
Sadly can't help (sorry) but is there any way you could post the background image of mt fuji on its own? Its lovely :)
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
it's here, i posted it a few posts before ;)
http://cl.ly/3I371o1z0w003t371d0l
it's here, i posted it a few posts before ;)
iHotu
Aug 29, 09:05 AM
Hope they bring back the $499 price point, Merom or not
Tonsko
Jan 23, 04:11 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/mattlike/Chally.jpg
2009 Challenger R/T
Yes, mate. Black stripes every time you go somewhere! (Although that could get pricey :P )
2009 Challenger R/T
Yes, mate. Black stripes every time you go somewhere! (Although that could get pricey :P )
PBF
Mar 30, 09:30 PM
Ah, I see. Thanks, guys.
By the way, when re-arranging Launchpad, creating folders, deleting, moving icons around, etc., does the order stay the same after restart? In DP1, it resets to default layout. Ta.
By the way, when re-arranging Launchpad, creating folders, deleting, moving icons around, etc., does the order stay the same after restart? In DP1, it resets to default layout. Ta.
dongmin
Jan 13, 05:56 PM
Yeah I guess there are a lot of problems with this.
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
atticus18244fsa
Mar 22, 10:52 PM
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
I would buy this if it was 220gb. Great mockup
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
I would buy this if it was 220gb. Great mockup
wordoflife
Nov 23, 06:40 PM
Last thing I paid for was the fair to get on the public bus to get to school for $0.85.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Bucharest_HESS_bus_1.jpg
That's not the city bus I took, I just Googled "public bus"
reticulate
Apr 19, 08:45 PM
Obviously Sandy Bridge. I don't think we'll see the K series processors, though. Apple likes to keep a tight lid on thermals.
A small blade SSD built-in would be nice, but we didn't see them in the MBP update, so perhaps they're supply constrained? I have no doubt we'll see them across all Macs eventually though.
As to the GPU, we've been asking for desktop parts for god knows how long to drive that massive screen, but Apple obviously have different priorities. A high-end mobile AMD part is the most likely bet, even though a desktop GPU would be totally awesome.
Other than that, Thunderbolt begins to seep into the rest of the Mac lineup. I'm still intrigued as to how much industry support it'll eventually get as a native IO, but even with ethernet/firewire/usb adapters it's still a nice bit of tech.
A small blade SSD built-in would be nice, but we didn't see them in the MBP update, so perhaps they're supply constrained? I have no doubt we'll see them across all Macs eventually though.
As to the GPU, we've been asking for desktop parts for god knows how long to drive that massive screen, but Apple obviously have different priorities. A high-end mobile AMD part is the most likely bet, even though a desktop GPU would be totally awesome.
Other than that, Thunderbolt begins to seep into the rest of the Mac lineup. I'm still intrigued as to how much industry support it'll eventually get as a native IO, but even with ethernet/firewire/usb adapters it's still a nice bit of tech.
Veinticinco
Mar 23, 04:24 AM
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
h1r0ll3r
Feb 22, 11:47 AM
Man I hate this friggin monitor. Can't wait until I get a new(er) one.
Jonasgold
Mar 23, 12:44 AM
As long as my iPhone doesn't have better storage & battery life, I'll have use for a classic to take my entire music library with me.
Whether or not they discontinue will solely depend on the nr. Of classics sold.
Since it'sthat old, it no longer has to make up for R&D,design, marketing,... So the profits per sold unit must be rather high. But since it's renamed to classic and (apart from a bigger hard drive) had no updates in 3 years, I wouldn't expect they 'll invest in it any further.
Whether or not they discontinue will solely depend on the nr. Of classics sold.
Since it'sthat old, it no longer has to make up for R&D,design, marketing,... So the profits per sold unit must be rather high. But since it's renamed to classic and (apart from a bigger hard drive) had no updates in 3 years, I wouldn't expect they 'll invest in it any further.
Chadder
Mar 24, 05:12 PM
So has anyone stuck a 6970 in a mac pro yet?
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
caspersoong
Apr 20, 03:38 AM
Hope Apple surprises us... And not just a Sandy Bridge upgrade alongside Thunderbolt.
lordonuthin
Feb 23, 08:19 PM
ok. now do you have the 2.66 or 2.26 mac pro octo?
2.66
for the i7, what most people do is run linux in a VM and do the bigadv units while also doing gpu units. but i wouldn't do this unless you're running at least around 3.3 ghz. i'm running around 3.6 ghz i think, and i have 2 gpu's going on mine. it slows down the bigadv units, but the gpu's make up for it.
I'm not going to go to all that trouble, VM's seem like kind of a pain.
how are you trying to overclock now? just in the bios? that's basically just how i do it - in the bios. but that will depend on your motherboard
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
2.66
for the i7, what most people do is run linux in a VM and do the bigadv units while also doing gpu units. but i wouldn't do this unless you're running at least around 3.3 ghz. i'm running around 3.6 ghz i think, and i have 2 gpu's going on mine. it slows down the bigadv units, but the gpu's make up for it.
I'm not going to go to all that trouble, VM's seem like kind of a pain.
how are you trying to overclock now? just in the bios? that's basically just how i do it - in the bios. but that will depend on your motherboard
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
iBorg20181
Oct 24, 01:21 AM
BINGO - as i said in a previous post.
Santa rosa is the one to hang out for. core2duo merom is the equivalent of an "Apple Speed Bump next tuesday".
Nothing to cream over. Nothing to hold off for :rolleyes: :p
aussie_geek
Me thinks thou doest protest too much! Don't worry, your Yonah MBP will still be OK!
Merom is an "evolutionary," not "revolutionary" upgrade for MBPs. Santa Rosa will also be "evolutionary." A little faster FSB, NAND technology, 802.11N ... all nice items, but not fantastic. A nice upgrade, but unless accompanied by a major case design, also "nothing to cream over" for most buyers.
:p
iBorg
Santa rosa is the one to hang out for. core2duo merom is the equivalent of an "Apple Speed Bump next tuesday".
Nothing to cream over. Nothing to hold off for :rolleyes: :p
aussie_geek
Me thinks thou doest protest too much! Don't worry, your Yonah MBP will still be OK!
Merom is an "evolutionary," not "revolutionary" upgrade for MBPs. Santa Rosa will also be "evolutionary." A little faster FSB, NAND technology, 802.11N ... all nice items, but not fantastic. A nice upgrade, but unless accompanied by a major case design, also "nothing to cream over" for most buyers.
:p
iBorg
GeeYouEye
Jan 2, 06:15 PM
Guaranteed, or almost guaranteed:
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
iWork 07
iLife 07
iTV
Very likely:
A new feature or two in Leopard, possibly with a release month
A new Jam Pack or 2
More iPod games
Likely:
Speed bump to one or more Mac lines
Demo of Photoshop CS 3
Update to some pro software app (but not all)
Less likely:
Discontinuation of Appleworks (only if iWork '07 includes a spreadsheet)
release date for Leopard
Major upgrade to Mac mini (video card upgrade) or MacBook Pro
New Displays
iPhone
Touch-screen video iPod
Unlikely:
New iMac form factor
Major upgrade to any line other than mini or MBP
New consumer software other than a spreadsheet addition to iWork
Upgrade to Logic, Filemaker, Shake, or Aperture
Immediate release of Leopard
New iPod form factor (iPod Micro, for example)
802.11n
"Yeah, no.":
New Pro App
New iPod Hi-Fi
xMac or any other new Mac line
Any new Apple peripherals (ie printer, scanner, camera, speakers.)
PCI(e) slots in anything but the Mac Pro :(
Apple switches back to PPC.
New kernel in Leopard
There, did I miss anything?
iBorg20181
Oct 24, 01:35 AM
The current Napa64 platform (that is, Napa with Merom as the CPU) does support 64-bit instructions. It can't address more than 4 GiB of physical memory, but it can run the faster 64-bit instructions.
And that's exactly what I've been waiting for! I don't care about using more than 4GB ram (or 3.2GB as Applied Visual has pointed out), but the 64-bit capability of Merom MBPs will be, I believe, important within the next couple of years that I'll be using this new lappie!
:D
iBorg
And that's exactly what I've been waiting for! I don't care about using more than 4GB ram (or 3.2GB as Applied Visual has pointed out), but the 64-bit capability of Merom MBPs will be, I believe, important within the next couple of years that I'll be using this new lappie!
:D
iBorg
No comments:
Post a Comment