motulist
Aug 11, 12:49 PM
... It may launch this month, or a year from now.
I think you misunderstood. By "delays that could set it back as far as next year," I interpret that to mean calendar year. So my reading of what the rumor is suggesting is that at the most it'll be released sometime within the first 3 months of or 7 months from now.
I think you misunderstood. By "delays that could set it back as far as next year," I interpret that to mean calendar year. So my reading of what the rumor is suggesting is that at the most it'll be released sometime within the first 3 months of or 7 months from now.
theBB
Aug 11, 07:28 PM
Confused.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
Can somebody explain me the differences between the cellphone market between the US and Europe.
Will a 'iPhone' just be marketed to the US or worldwide (as the iPod does)?
Well, let's see, about 20 years ago, a lot of countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere decided on a standard digital cell phone system and called it GSM. About 15 years ago GSM networks became quite widespread across these countries. In the meantime US kept on using analog cell phones. Motorola did not even believe that digital cell phone had much of a future, so it decided to stay away from this market, a decision which almost bankrupted the company.
US started rolling out digital service only about 10 years ago. As US government does not like to dictate private companies how to conduct their business, they sold the spectrum and put down some basic ground rules, but for the most part they let the service providers use any network they wished. For one reason or another, these providers decided go with about 4 different standards at first. Quite a few companies went with GSM, AT&T picked a similar, but incompatible TDMA (IS=136?) standard, Nextel went with a proprietary standard they called iDEN and Sprint and Verizon went with CDMA, a radically different standard (IS-95) designed by Qualcomm. At the time, other big companies were very skeptical, so Qualcomm had to not only develop the underlying communication standards, but manufacture cell phones and the electronics for the cell towers. However, once the system proved itself, everybody started moving in that direction. Even the upcoming 3G system for these GSM networks, called UMTS, use a variant of CDMA technology.
CDMA is a more complicated standard compared to GSM, but it allows the providers to cram more users into each cell, it is supposedly cheaper to maintain and more flexible in some respects. However, anybody in that boat has to pay hefty royalties to Qualcomm, dampening its popularity. While creating UMTS, GSM standards bodies did everything they could to avoid using Qualcomm patents to avoid these payments. However, I don't know how successful they got in these efforts.
Even though Europeans here on these forums like to gloat that US did not join the worldwide standard, that we did not play along, that ours is a hodge podge of incompatible systems; without the freedom to try out different standards, CDMA would not have the opportunity to prove its feasibility and performance. In the end, the rest of the world is also reaping the benefits through UMTS/WCDMA.
Of course, not using the same standards as everybody else has its own price. The components of CDMA cell phones cost more and the system itself is more complicated, so CDMA versions of cell phones hit the market six months to a year after their GSM counterparts, if at all. The infrastructure cost of a rare system is higher as well, so AT&T had to rip apart its network to replace it with GSM version about five years after rolling it out. Sprint is probably going to convert Nextel's system in the near future as well.
I hope this answers your question.
MatthewThomas
Apr 10, 11:45 AM
I'll be at the event and plan to give my take on it. I've been using FCP since day one and can attest that little actual functionality has changed over the years. There have been additional features added, but nearly no change to the way that you do your work. And in a post-tape world, this is not good.
Here is a long thread featuring my ideas and predictions over what the FCP platform may become, and how it might affect Apple's other distribution models:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I posted this a few days ago when this rumor first broke, but I think it might be fun to post again. It is a long thread, and some of the most interesting predictions are found buried in the dozen+ pages of posts. I should add that Cinema5D is a forum for digital filmmakers and commercial producers that need to operate on limited budgets, so the comments there reflect some of the best "up and coming" Final Cut Pro users.
Here is a long thread featuring my ideas and predictions over what the FCP platform may become, and how it might affect Apple's other distribution models:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I posted this a few days ago when this rumor first broke, but I think it might be fun to post again. It is a long thread, and some of the most interesting predictions are found buried in the dozen+ pages of posts. I should add that Cinema5D is a forum for digital filmmakers and commercial producers that need to operate on limited budgets, so the comments there reflect some of the best "up and coming" Final Cut Pro users.
512ke
Aug 26, 03:57 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
HORTENSE
Apr 7, 10:20 PM
So they DID have my Black 64GB ATT. I'm stuck with this Verizon model ,'-,
Pez555
Apr 11, 12:54 PM
grrrr stop posting this macrumors, i want the iphone 5 in june!
ricgnzlzcr
Aug 15, 12:30 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
TerrorOFdeath
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
Forget i7.. Hellhammer seriously? Didnt expect that from you. (or where you just speaking what tehnical could be possible)
Marketingwise this would just make no sense at all. It would actually be a Conflict of interest for the MBP.
i5 seems logic. And then just mhz bump bto.
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
GMA3000 is ok for an Air. Even if it is just DX10.
Tod
PS: @Scottsdale: Did you buy this Generation MBA. Or did you wait, because the backlit thing? (just wondering, because to an i5 you cant say no can you ;-) Oh yes, to replay to your text. The bus is higher, and so is the turboboost option up to 2.X GhZ. It IS better than actuall CD2. The power you use if you need it (if not, much more battery life). But on the GPU part im with you. It is still freaking me out, crp Intel Graphics. But i can swallow it on a MBA.
Marketingwise this would just make no sense at all. It would actually be a Conflict of interest for the MBP.
i5 seems logic. And then just mhz bump bto.
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
GMA3000 is ok for an Air. Even if it is just DX10.
Tod
PS: @Scottsdale: Did you buy this Generation MBA. Or did you wait, because the backlit thing? (just wondering, because to an i5 you cant say no can you ;-) Oh yes, to replay to your text. The bus is higher, and so is the turboboost option up to 2.X GhZ. It IS better than actuall CD2. The power you use if you need it (if not, much more battery life). But on the GPU part im with you. It is still freaking me out, crp Intel Graphics. But i can swallow it on a MBA.
yg17
Apr 27, 08:45 AM
And now Trump is demanding to see Obama's educational records. It's not going to end. If Obama releases those, then what will Trump demand?
When this whole birther bullcrap started back before the election, I said that if he ever releases the long form, they'll claim it's fake and then demand more proof. Looks like I'm right.
When this whole birther bullcrap started back before the election, I said that if he ever releases the long form, they'll claim it's fake and then demand more proof. Looks like I'm right.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 10:46 AM
but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
spydr
Mar 31, 10:05 PM
Google is really trying hard to anything but their big motto. :eek:
emotion
Jul 20, 08:32 AM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
edit: quad version of Woodcrest is Clovertown.
Island Dog
Aug 25, 08:24 PM
Right. Because the whole "if your battery's serial number falls within this range, this range, or this range" concept was so terribly difficult to grasp.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:00 PM
It must take a lot of cores to RIP DVDs and seed them...:confused:I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.
skunk
Mar 22, 07:39 PM
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?As far as necessary to make it appear that he was the "last piece of the jigsaw" rather than its inventor.
heisetax
Jul 14, 04:05 PM
A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
From a purely math point of view the Mac will always loose out when compared to a like Windows unit. This will be easier yet to see with both machines using the same processors. A Mac User will add in the Mac experience, ease of use, better looking case, options that just work, Plug 'n Play compared to Plug 'n Pray & other items like total cost of ownership or need we say less headachs.
Bill the TaxMan
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
From a purely math point of view the Mac will always loose out when compared to a like Windows unit. This will be easier yet to see with both machines using the same processors. A Mac User will add in the Mac experience, ease of use, better looking case, options that just work, Plug 'n Play compared to Plug 'n Pray & other items like total cost of ownership or need we say less headachs.
Bill the TaxMan
dclocke
Sep 19, 08:24 AM
That isn't exactly what I said, I don't have a problem with people discussing new and upcoming products and features and when we might see them. Count me in.
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
Its the people that are getting so worked up, annoyed at Apple, threatening to dump the platform and move to Windows, claiming Apple are three months behind Windows systems and generally bitching.
Its all pointless as the same people will start up again with the next technology advances as soon as the Macbook range is updated with Merom.
There's something to be said for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your post...
PODshady
Nov 28, 10:24 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:34 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
hob
Apr 6, 04:46 AM
If the new Final Cut is 64-bit it will presumably rely on AV-kit.
folks said the same thing about FCS3 and Snow Leopard and yet as I recall that is exactly what they did.
I always felt the reason FCS3 came out just before SL was precisely because it wasn't 64-bit and was more of a maintenance release, whereas SL was touting Grand Central Dispatch etc etc...
folks said the same thing about FCS3 and Snow Leopard and yet as I recall that is exactly what they did.
I always felt the reason FCS3 came out just before SL was precisely because it wasn't 64-bit and was more of a maintenance release, whereas SL was touting Grand Central Dispatch etc etc...
Reach
Apr 12, 03:18 PM
You could use an app to turn it into a file first.
That's what effectively happens anyway...
I could, yes, but I'd prefer not to. :p
Anyway, Takeshi Kitano rules. :D
That's what effectively happens anyway...
I could, yes, but I'd prefer not to. :p
Anyway, Takeshi Kitano rules. :D
HiRez
Sep 18, 11:57 PM
The aluminum design has been been pretty good (although I personally like the Titanium design better, with the dark keys that don't get glared when light is shining on them). But, the Mac pro laptop line is in dire need on a system refresh. The design is getting a little stale.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
cloudnine
Aug 25, 04:45 PM
maybe if apple wasn't so dead set on making everything as tiny as possible so that nothing had any room to ventilate and in turn, baking inside, there wouldn't be all these problems. i'd be interested to see the performance results of say, a macbook pro with the casing type of a mac pro.
hrm...
then again, i'm no hardware designer so :P *thinking outloud*
hrm...
then again, i'm no hardware designer so :P *thinking outloud*
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.