shadowx
Sep 11, 01:23 AM
I could care less about the Movie Store... or a video iPod... I just want to hear the following in the same sentence:
"Core 2 Duo"; "Macbook Pro" ;)
It likely will not happen on Tuesdsay, but I'm going to be very disappointed if it doesn't happen in the next few weeks... I'm not angry and I'm not a whiner - I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all.
"Core 2 Duo"; "Macbook Pro" ;)
It likely will not happen on Tuesdsay, but I'm going to be very disappointed if it doesn't happen in the next few weeks... I'm not angry and I'm not a whiner - I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all.
iTravis
Mar 26, 11:49 PM
As long as I can upgrade at the lowest 2 year price (of course ;)) in June/July, a fall release
wouldn't be that bad.
I voted negative but now that I think about it, this could be a good thing!
IF THEY release something truly "magical" in the Fall (use this time wisely if true).
A larger screen, faster (dual) processor and a new camera (not as dire), will get me by until the Fall.
New notification system PLEASE!!! :apple:
wouldn't be that bad.
I voted negative but now that I think about it, this could be a good thing!
IF THEY release something truly "magical" in the Fall (use this time wisely if true).
A larger screen, faster (dual) processor and a new camera (not as dire), will get me by until the Fall.
New notification system PLEASE!!! :apple:
poppe
Aug 3, 10:42 PM
I can live with fast updates!!!! MBP Merom for college after all!!!
kxbcvoi
Apr 20, 01:25 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)
I want A5 chip, 64 GB, white version. It will replace my plastic, 412 MHz, 8 GB, no auto-focus camera.
I want A5 chip, 64 GB, white version. It will replace my plastic, 412 MHz, 8 GB, no auto-focus camera.
BRLawyer
Nov 27, 04:06 AM
God I'm so sick of people making this excuse. So just because no one else has found the right formula it means that Apple can't right?
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
Sorry, Silicon, but your "If Apple does it, it works" argument is weak in this case...the Tablet market is simply tiny, period.
And why so? Because, instead of facing a constrained demand for music players or video players (as in the case of the iPod market), the Tablet faces NOTHING which is not already dealt with under other segments.
We have, on one hand, desktops, laptops and notebooks which fit the bill for everyone, notably if we consider the small-sub note market (10"-13").
On the other hand, we have full-fledged mobile phones and PDAs which cover the needs of those preferring portability over sheer power.
And where are the tablets? NOWHERE, because they only fit the bills of us freaks desiring a nice pen-based Mac...sorry, it's not enough for a big company like Apple to base its products on such a small audience...and I am sure their market analysis team has already done its homework.
Windows is a CRAP, granted...but this doesn't block PC fanboys from buying millions of notebooks every year; this argument is moot as well, and OS X will have limited market impact for the adoption of a Tablet.
As for your funny arguments at the end, I may just say that they have nothing to do with other product adoptions such as the vPod and the Intel switch...the former is a basic evolution of the iPod (although still selling much less than normal iPods devoted to music), the latter a clear choice by Apple in face of IBM's lack of devotion to the PowerPC.
You seem to speak from a position of personal knowledge. Is this because you actual know these facts, or is it just the conviction of your analysis?
I happen to know one of your statements is false. My company needs it and wants it. So do many people in the construction industry. In many respects, we are blind to the activities where we make our money. So, we are forced to often depend on a management layer to provide a communication stream between our administrative resources and our jobsites. However, in many cases, we manage in reactionary mode because of the inadequacies of our communication pathway.
When I was hired seven years ago, one of my assigned goals was to automate our field operations. I am going to condense many years of study and experimentation into a single statement. Tablet PC's have the right combination of footprint and technology to 'close the loop' for what we need.
My company has incorporated many advanced technologies. We have hosted numerous 'show and tell' sessions for others in the industry. A by-product of this has been the development of a large peer group of other construction IT professionals. We all see the need to manage field operations through technology, not through untimely reports, telephone calls and/or faxes, weekly meetings, etc.
Sorry, your argument is also insufficient. Construction companies have used PDAs for years, including the Newton...and that's why a mere evolution of such products is more than enough. If you think ONE anecdotal evidence of a company adopting advanced technologies is enough, think again.
For 99% of the market needing portability (including construction, engineering, delivery companies, logistics integrators and the like), people will go either "notebook" or "advanced PDA"...the Tablet is right in-between, squeezed among 2 MUCH clearer choices. "Footprint" and "technology" are pretty much covered by both poles...and not by a vaporware Tablet.
Origami = Tablet = Flop...never forget this.
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
Sorry, Silicon, but your "If Apple does it, it works" argument is weak in this case...the Tablet market is simply tiny, period.
And why so? Because, instead of facing a constrained demand for music players or video players (as in the case of the iPod market), the Tablet faces NOTHING which is not already dealt with under other segments.
We have, on one hand, desktops, laptops and notebooks which fit the bill for everyone, notably if we consider the small-sub note market (10"-13").
On the other hand, we have full-fledged mobile phones and PDAs which cover the needs of those preferring portability over sheer power.
And where are the tablets? NOWHERE, because they only fit the bills of us freaks desiring a nice pen-based Mac...sorry, it's not enough for a big company like Apple to base its products on such a small audience...and I am sure their market analysis team has already done its homework.
Windows is a CRAP, granted...but this doesn't block PC fanboys from buying millions of notebooks every year; this argument is moot as well, and OS X will have limited market impact for the adoption of a Tablet.
As for your funny arguments at the end, I may just say that they have nothing to do with other product adoptions such as the vPod and the Intel switch...the former is a basic evolution of the iPod (although still selling much less than normal iPods devoted to music), the latter a clear choice by Apple in face of IBM's lack of devotion to the PowerPC.
You seem to speak from a position of personal knowledge. Is this because you actual know these facts, or is it just the conviction of your analysis?
I happen to know one of your statements is false. My company needs it and wants it. So do many people in the construction industry. In many respects, we are blind to the activities where we make our money. So, we are forced to often depend on a management layer to provide a communication stream between our administrative resources and our jobsites. However, in many cases, we manage in reactionary mode because of the inadequacies of our communication pathway.
When I was hired seven years ago, one of my assigned goals was to automate our field operations. I am going to condense many years of study and experimentation into a single statement. Tablet PC's have the right combination of footprint and technology to 'close the loop' for what we need.
My company has incorporated many advanced technologies. We have hosted numerous 'show and tell' sessions for others in the industry. A by-product of this has been the development of a large peer group of other construction IT professionals. We all see the need to manage field operations through technology, not through untimely reports, telephone calls and/or faxes, weekly meetings, etc.
Sorry, your argument is also insufficient. Construction companies have used PDAs for years, including the Newton...and that's why a mere evolution of such products is more than enough. If you think ONE anecdotal evidence of a company adopting advanced technologies is enough, think again.
For 99% of the market needing portability (including construction, engineering, delivery companies, logistics integrators and the like), people will go either "notebook" or "advanced PDA"...the Tablet is right in-between, squeezed among 2 MUCH clearer choices. "Footprint" and "technology" are pretty much covered by both poles...and not by a vaporware Tablet.
Origami = Tablet = Flop...never forget this.
applesith
May 6, 12:39 AM
This is the biggest load of ************ I have ever seen on this site. Why would Apple redesign everything in their notebooks to make this switch? What is gained by switching?
Don't panic
May 4, 10:50 AM
The other downside is we have half our health and action points. I'm not sure how big of a trap we can see early in a game, but if it has 3 or more that wipes out a whole team possibly.
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
Tsunami911
Apr 5, 02:31 PM
Well you're among a shrinking crowd statistically.
Actually that's an ignorant and factually incorrect statement.
iPhone users are more satisfied with their devices than other smart phone owners AND they sell more iPhones everyday.
Hence the population is statistically growing.
Actually that's an ignorant and factually incorrect statement.
iPhone users are more satisfied with their devices than other smart phone owners AND they sell more iPhones everyday.
Hence the population is statistically growing.
tigertrainer
Jul 30, 04:05 PM
OMG, I hope this happens. My credit card will leap out of my wallet like a spawning salmon if:
*it had serious iPod functionality
*it had a normal minijack for headphones instead of some annoying proprietary one
*Wifi for use with VoIP like Gizmo Project
*Bluetooth
*iCal and adressbook mobile versions with sync
*Video and Camera with flash, mobile iPhoto
*Imagine built-in camera used in iChat!
I hope Apple goes with their own new network. This way we can tell those greedy-a$$ comunications companies who give us crappy phones, expensive service, and crippled features to ***** off. YES! :D
*it had serious iPod functionality
*it had a normal minijack for headphones instead of some annoying proprietary one
*Wifi for use with VoIP like Gizmo Project
*Bluetooth
*iCal and adressbook mobile versions with sync
*Video and Camera with flash, mobile iPhoto
*Imagine built-in camera used in iChat!
I hope Apple goes with their own new network. This way we can tell those greedy-a$$ comunications companies who give us crappy phones, expensive service, and crippled features to ***** off. YES! :D
ferrous
Mar 29, 09:27 AM
With Pandora or just having an iPhone/iPod, I don't see a point streaming music, max 20Gb, what if there is not internet, what if you stop subscribing. Doesn't sound like a breakthrough idea to me. :cool:
Erasmus
Aug 4, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that the future of running Windows on our Macs is to not run Windows on our Macs.
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
phlavor
Apr 21, 06:14 PM
I would hazard a guess that the thinner facade suggests a lack of optical media drives, or if it does have one, a vertical slot-loader. But I think what with flash drive or Internet distribution, optical media drives aren't really needed any more, even on a Pro machine.
If they made the MacBook Air External Superdrive bootable and compatible with any computer I would welcome the elimination of internal optical drives.
If they made the MacBook Air External Superdrive bootable and compatible with any computer I would welcome the elimination of internal optical drives.
hhaydenn
Apr 25, 09:23 AM
Hold up, so it's just that easy to get in touch with Steve Jobs? What's his email address!?
netdog
Sep 11, 09:17 AM
6G iPods (simply larger capacity and maybe a new feature or two)
I would have to call such a thing 5.1G so let's hope Steve does better than that.
I would have to call such a thing 5.1G so let's hope Steve does better than that.
Cougarcat
Mar 29, 01:54 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
In 5-10 years the iPod will become extinct. By then the touch will be hanging on a thin wire.
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
In 5-10 years the iPod will become extinct. By then the touch will be hanging on a thin wire.
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
ticman
Nov 13, 01:57 PM
My concern with A windshield mount is all the wires hanging down. Two if using power cord and speaker cord.
Thoughts or comments?
Thoughts or comments?
Object-X
Aug 4, 12:13 AM
I wondered, when Apple announced it was switching to Intel, if it would affect the upgrade cycle. Intel releases new chips often and companies like Dell ship them almost immediately. Apple has historically waited a long time before updating a product; but are they now going to be forced to keep pace to remain competitive? I think they will have to now. I expect speed bumps to their products to happen more frequently. It wouldn't surprise me to see the MBP get the new Core 2 Duo chips next week. (even though I just bought one last week :( )
Steven in VA
May 8, 11:19 PM
Didn't somebody already point out the family account bargain?
$149 for 5 accounts; only 30 bucks per account per year seems like a good deal for us. Even though our kids are grown they still like having it. And the 10GB storage on the sub-accounts is still big enough to be useful.
But I just got the email notice that mine/ours is just about to renew, too. To have it become free for new users in a week, or a month, even, would be somewhat of a bite . . .
$149 for 5 accounts; only 30 bucks per account per year seems like a good deal for us. Even though our kids are grown they still like having it. And the 10GB storage on the sub-accounts is still big enough to be useful.
But I just got the email notice that mine/ours is just about to renew, too. To have it become free for new users in a week, or a month, even, would be somewhat of a bite . . .
jmcrutch
Apr 18, 04:25 PM
From the Constitution of the United States
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power
... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power
... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Eidorian
Aug 11, 09:12 AM
I'm pretty sure Conroe has no performance gains over Merom. Why is your friend opposed to Merom in a desktop? Merom is supposed to run cooler correct?Conroe has a much faster FSB, more cache, and ramps up much faster in clock speed.
Merom and Yonah are replacements for Pentium-M. While Conroe is the replacement for the Pentium D. Conroe runs much hotter but not as hot as the old G5's. 45 C at full load for Conroe and 75 C for the 970FX.
And if you're worried about wattage...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html
Merom and Yonah are replacements for Pentium-M. While Conroe is the replacement for the Pentium D. Conroe runs much hotter but not as hot as the old G5's. 45 C at full load for Conroe and 75 C for the 970FX.
And if you're worried about wattage...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html
SeattleMoose
Mar 28, 10:10 AM
Limited parts production "silver lining" in that polishing the underlying OS/Software is ALWAYS most welcome.
Jazwire
Apr 24, 07:47 PM
Please give us retina displays or at least an option for the next Imac refresh.
Jelite
Mar 29, 11:50 AM
Why not just use an app that lets you stream from your computer at home? why pay for online storage when you already have it?