Fukui
Mar 26, 04:25 PM
Yes, Apple made this browser before M$ IE was pulled, but it was obvious that M$ would be pulling it long before they announced it. With the integratioin of IE into windows it was only a matter of time and if Apple had waited until the announcement they would have been so far behind that the mainstream would have suffered. Safari is just now getting up to speed on its accessability to most web pages- and I even still have major accessability problems with some financial pages and registering at some other types of pages. Most people don't know about the alternative browsers out there such as Mozilla, etc. so it would have proved devestating to Apple had they not been on the ball with Safari. They just know netscape, IE and now safari. I think iMac-Japan's comment on this particular issue is partly true as is your Calebj14.
I don't think MS dropping IE was because of Apple's market share.
Its more to do with longhorn and the mixing of web api's and desktop api's
(.NET) so that there is no distinction between an application that runs on the web (IE) or run from your desktop, thats why its canceled further development for Windows XP and lower.
In longhorn, the Api's that you use for displaying web pages (java say goodbye) are the same ones that are bolted ONLY TO LONGHORN. To continue MSIE development on mac wouldn't work because then mac has all the same Api's as Longhorn, and MS wouldn't want that...besides, MSIE was more of a gesture than anything else, since it never supported activeX wich was the only real major reason for needing IE6...
I don't think MS dropping IE was because of Apple's market share.
Its more to do with longhorn and the mixing of web api's and desktop api's
(.NET) so that there is no distinction between an application that runs on the web (IE) or run from your desktop, thats why its canceled further development for Windows XP and lower.
In longhorn, the Api's that you use for displaying web pages (java say goodbye) are the same ones that are bolted ONLY TO LONGHORN. To continue MSIE development on mac wouldn't work because then mac has all the same Api's as Longhorn, and MS wouldn't want that...besides, MSIE was more of a gesture than anything else, since it never supported activeX wich was the only real major reason for needing IE6...
Zwhaler
Aug 21, 12:35 PM
Yeah, if the Zune can't even play videos, what makes anyone think it will be even nearly competable with the next iPod? I think that either the Zune is gonna suck, or they are gonna surprise with an honestly good music player.
kerryb
Apr 26, 01:09 PM
I don't even think the word "App" is really officially a word. As for generic terms, everyone uses generic terms to describe their company's products and brand names, as that's the only way you can allow people to make a link between something they already know, and the product.
"Apple" is also generic, yet everyone agrees that it's fairly reserved for Apple inc. So are many other names that companies patent to avoid others using it.
App is not an official word but "ape" as in "he aped my every move" is.
"Apple" is also generic, yet everyone agrees that it's fairly reserved for Apple inc. So are many other names that companies patent to avoid others using it.
App is not an official word but "ape" as in "he aped my every move" is.
zoran
Nov 23, 04:39 AM
So when will the faster versions of clovertown be available, any rumor on that?
bketchum
Sep 1, 02:07 PM
Quote:
What is this chin on the iMac that everybody is talking about?
23"?
The large space (chunk) below the screen.
In Canada we call it the Mulroney.
What is this chin on the iMac that everybody is talking about?
23"?
The large space (chunk) below the screen.
In Canada we call it the Mulroney.
wdlove
Mar 18, 10:11 PM
Many have called for the demise of Apple, but it is still going strong. Anyone that talks against Apple does it at their peril.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
lordonuthin
Oct 16, 02:20 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for hitting 1 million!
Thanks, and sorry I just moved past you:D for now anyway...
Thanks, and sorry I just moved past you:D for now anyway...
benjayman2
Feb 28, 01:57 PM
First attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6433/img0390ko.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/i/img0390ko.jpg/)
Gave up and started taking pics of parts of our new room.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3861/img0392y.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/img0392y.jpg/)
Digital and Analog entertainment
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4808/img0394m.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0394m.jpg/)
Second attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9025/img0396ki.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/img0396ki.jpg/)
Pic from the window bay.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1438/img0398p.jpg (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/img0398p.jpg/)
The only pic that I thought turned out decent.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1701/img0386of.jpg
Hardware in the sig
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6433/img0390ko.jpg (http://img141.imageshack.us/i/img0390ko.jpg/)
Gave up and started taking pics of parts of our new room.
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3861/img0392y.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/img0392y.jpg/)
Digital and Analog entertainment
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4808/img0394m.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0394m.jpg/)
Second attempt to get everything in one shot.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9025/img0396ki.jpg (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/img0396ki.jpg/)
Pic from the window bay.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1438/img0398p.jpg (http://img84.imageshack.us/i/img0398p.jpg/)
The only pic that I thought turned out decent.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/1701/img0386of.jpg
Hardware in the sig
imac_japan
Apr 5, 01:40 PM
and guess which company has been more profitable recently? which company is debt free? (hint: it's not gateway) and which company had to expand beyond just selling cheap PCs to continue its operation? (another hint: it's not apple.)
Now that has to be the most double standard quote that I have ever read !!!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
Now that has to be the most double standard quote that I have ever read !!!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 04:14 PM
mispost...ignore.
mr.suff
Feb 22, 03:51 AM
Way back in early 2008.
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n81/bigguysuff/IMG_0394.jpg
24" 7,1 iMac and a base 1,1 MacBook Air
Right now. Literally just set up the Dell 27"
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n81/bigguysuff/Setup.jpg
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n81/bigguysuff/IMG_0394.jpg
24" 7,1 iMac and a base 1,1 MacBook Air
Right now. Literally just set up the Dell 27"
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n81/bigguysuff/Setup.jpg
Gasu E.
Nov 28, 08:26 AM
I find you the one that is incorrigible. The 23" inch price is competitive where it is as your link so eloquently points out. The Apple displays are easily worth a 15-20% mark-up. The problem is since the last time the display prices were updated 20" wide-screen panel prices have dropped nearly in half. So a year ago when Apple released this $699 price point it was a good price because competitors were selling the same panels at $599. Now they are at $399 and some times as low a $299. Apple's display is worth extra just not 75% to 100% extra.
I see a lot of scientific analysis went into your response. "Not!"
Go to many suppliers of equipment aimed at professionals, and you will often see professional-quality products priced at 3-5x that the price of consumer-quality products in the same functional category.
I am guessing from your "easily worth a 15-20% mark-up" remark that your experience is limited to high-quality consumer products. Don't confuse a consumer upgrade with a professional alternative. Danny, "you're out of your element."
I think a lot of people on this thread would like to see Apple offer some consumer-targeted alternatives to the current monitors, competitively priced. But that's not the same as buying pro equipment at a consumer price.
I see a lot of scientific analysis went into your response. "Not!"
Go to many suppliers of equipment aimed at professionals, and you will often see professional-quality products priced at 3-5x that the price of consumer-quality products in the same functional category.
I am guessing from your "easily worth a 15-20% mark-up" remark that your experience is limited to high-quality consumer products. Don't confuse a consumer upgrade with a professional alternative. Danny, "you're out of your element."
I think a lot of people on this thread would like to see Apple offer some consumer-targeted alternatives to the current monitors, competitively priced. But that's not the same as buying pro equipment at a consumer price.
Warbrain
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Looks like I'll be taking my lunch break at 1PM tomorrow:p
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
I just wish I was home at 1 PM. Silly me saying that it's fine for me to work at 11...
twoodcc
Mar 21, 06:25 PM
I guess I'm number 1 on the team now :cool:
congrats! keep it up!
congrats! keep it up!
mrthieme
Nov 29, 06:00 PM
The concept of internet based content is very attractive, bandwidth issues aside. I pay too much money for too many channels I don't need/want. And I don't want to watch when NBC tells me too. A selective subscription to the media I'm interested in is just what I want. The lowered cost associated with online distribution versus a whole network of channels being pumped into every home opens the door for the little guys with very focused content to get stuff out there, just like podcasts, and hopefully make enough money to keep improving their material.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:53 AM
Should this apply to Apple's competitors as well? Or only Apple should not be allowed to approve/disapprove apps?
I see apps like DVDs. There are DVDs made for all age groups, from preschool cartoons to the raunchiest sex and violence that one could stand.
In order to purchase an adult DVD there is some degree of age confirmation. But once that DVD is purchased, any person of any age can pop it in a player to view it. It's up to the parent to secure those DVDs against the curious eyes of minors. Likewise apps should not be censored.
Apple may not want to sell them through their store, just like Blockbuster may not want to sell triple X-rated movies, but if a developer can create an app for the iPhone then I'd prefer to see Apple or Apple's competitors let the market decide what is successful and what is not.
I see apps like DVDs. There are DVDs made for all age groups, from preschool cartoons to the raunchiest sex and violence that one could stand.
In order to purchase an adult DVD there is some degree of age confirmation. But once that DVD is purchased, any person of any age can pop it in a player to view it. It's up to the parent to secure those DVDs against the curious eyes of minors. Likewise apps should not be censored.
Apple may not want to sell them through their store, just like Blockbuster may not want to sell triple X-rated movies, but if a developer can create an app for the iPhone then I'd prefer to see Apple or Apple's competitors let the market decide what is successful and what is not.
the-ep
Mar 24, 01:04 PM
This sounds interesting. Now I'm anticipating the iMac/MP refresh even more....
The possibility of off-the-shelf options looks even better, though. Potential expansion of MP life span?
The possibility of off-the-shelf options looks even better, though. Potential expansion of MP life span?
Hairball
Apr 2, 07:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
This is simply an amazing ad.
This is simply an amazing ad.
FubsyGamr
Sep 20, 07:40 PM
Does anti-static have anything to do with it not being a lint magnet?
I have no idea haha.
I was also looking at some 3g Leather Cases (those are my favorite style) is there any reason they wouldn't work with my 4g? For example, this one looks good:
http://www.amazon.com/DLO-HipCase-Leather-Folio-touch/dp/B000WOIFO2
but would my 4g fit in there?
I have no idea haha.
I was also looking at some 3g Leather Cases (those are my favorite style) is there any reason they wouldn't work with my 4g? For example, this one looks good:
http://www.amazon.com/DLO-HipCase-Leather-Folio-touch/dp/B000WOIFO2
but would my 4g fit in there?
indiekiduk
Aug 24, 08:27 PM
Is the intel tiger server edition available now?
quadgirl
Sep 1, 03:32 PM
I disagree.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
mattster16
Nov 28, 02:51 AM
I think this is a good move. I would never buy a monitor that small personally, but it would match up perfectly with the Mini. Right now there really isn't a good option; the 20" is just too expensive.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
ffakr
Nov 25, 05:32 PM
Dell is setting the pricing. It's not about the vendor costs.. it's all about what vendors think customers will pay.
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
No comments:
Post a Comment