Unspeaked
Sep 6, 11:29 AM
Whre is FireWire 800?
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
I believe what you're looking for is called the iMac.
brianus
Sep 1, 02:59 PM
This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
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?
CF Fighter
Jan 11, 10:11 PM
I'm gathering either Macbook Light or Macbook Air from these rumors because immediately "Light as Air" comes to mind. I have not used a CD or Floppy for my data needs in a couple of years because I now rely on USB Flash drives and with SDHC cards now getting into the under 100 USD range (gathered from newegg.com prices) for 16 GB of storage just makes so much more sense to me.
After G
Sep 5, 12:14 AM
I thought Core Solo production was winding down, so maybe Apple could buy 'em all and do a price-drop. :D
Maybe in another life ... :(
Maybe in another life ... :(
northy124
Apr 10, 10:06 AM
Manual (stick) shift cars are rare today and I'm wondering how many people still know how to drive them. How did you learn and do you have a desire to own one?
Rare? are you serious? please leave America and see how rare they are ;)
I learnt how to drive a Manual from the get go, my licence allows for both Auto and Manual cars :cool: Jealous? :p
Rare? are you serious? please leave America and see how rare they are ;)
I learnt how to drive a Manual from the get go, my licence allows for both Auto and Manual cars :cool: Jealous? :p
Northgrove
May 3, 05:40 AM
In Lion a user simply needs to invoke the Launchpad, click and hold on the icon of the application they wish to delete, and when the icons begin to wiggle a cross appears on icons of apps installed via the Mac App Store. Clicking this cross brings up the message "Are you sure you want to delete the application...?", and clicking 'Delete' confirms and removes the app.
I hope I can right-click and delete them too. Pointless to click and wait while holding if you have an input device with more than one button... :rolleyes:
I hope I can right-click and delete them too. Pointless to click and wait while holding if you have an input device with more than one button... :rolleyes:
sbrage2000
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
Some definite improvements but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "jaw-dropper". I was really hoping to see more about how it integrates with the rest of the suite.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 6, 06:36 PM
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Not to mention the �99 we pay each for .mac over here.
Not to mention the �99 we pay each for .mac over here.
bdj21ya
Jan 11, 05:58 PM
I really don't think Apple will come out with external optical drives... That is just too... complicated.
First time I've seen USB called complicated :).
I see what you mean from a design standpoint though, inelegant might be a better word. But it just makes too much sense not to do it. I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
First time I've seen USB called complicated :).
I see what you mean from a design standpoint though, inelegant might be a better word. But it just makes too much sense not to do it. I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
Corban987
Apr 26, 11:56 PM
When I think of app store I always think of apples application store. The icon for it advertised on TV or websites says appstore, I think Amazon and Windows are trying to use Apples success on this.
hayesk
Apr 12, 10:10 PM
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
milo
Sep 6, 08:09 AM
yeah hopefully by at least the 26th or the 12th. but by speculating that it's going to happen the following week hasn't worked for anyone yet
They just updated the minis. I guess the predictions that it would happen soon turned out to be right after all.
:D
They just updated the minis. I guess the predictions that it would happen soon turned out to be right after all.
:D
spencers
Feb 19, 10:09 PM
Still the same
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af18/ssaulsbu/IMG_0984s.jpg
2.4ghz 15" MBP Late '08
iPhone 4 16GB
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af18/ssaulsbu/IMG_0984s.jpg
2.4ghz 15" MBP Late '08
iPhone 4 16GB
John Jacob
Jul 21, 08:00 AM
Here are historical Mac sales by quarter.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
So we are still not back upto Q1 2000 numbers? :eek:
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
So we are still not back upto Q1 2000 numbers? :eek:
cmaier
Apr 3, 12:01 PM
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)
Are you kidding me. I haven't looked into it but I would bet there's nothing holding you back from investing in apple. You have a computer most likely with an Internet connection?
Go online and trade. If you want to use an investing firm there are plenty, all you gotta do is call them or go to their site.
Try www.Wedbush.com
All you have to do is wire them
Your money or send them a check with the amount you want to invest plus the investment fee ($10 to $50+) and there
you go.
Lol. "stock" as in "I wish iPads were in stock"; not as in equities.
Are you kidding me. I haven't looked into it but I would bet there's nothing holding you back from investing in apple. You have a computer most likely with an Internet connection?
Go online and trade. If you want to use an investing firm there are plenty, all you gotta do is call them or go to their site.
Try www.Wedbush.com
All you have to do is wire them
Your money or send them a check with the amount you want to invest plus the investment fee ($10 to $50+) and there
you go.
Lol. "stock" as in "I wish iPads were in stock"; not as in equities.
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:34 PM
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
well i will be a nice guy and tell you what chin is.
right below the screen.....you see that thick white bezel with apple logo? that's the "chin."
if you ask me "what is apple logo?" then i will throw mac mini power brick at your face.
well i will be a nice guy and tell you what chin is.
right below the screen.....you see that thick white bezel with apple logo? that's the "chin."
if you ask me "what is apple logo?" then i will throw mac mini power brick at your face.
bigmc6000
Jul 18, 08:02 AM
I think it'd be a good idea. What most people in here seem to forget about is that there are millions of people who don't have DVD burners, much less DL DVD burners. Also, if the quality gets much more than 480p we're talking about quite a few older computers not being able to play it back very well. I think my 1.5GHz Powerbook is technically (according to apple) limited at 480p so if there's any slow down or jerkiness to get it to 720p I'm not a big fan of that.
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
princealfie
Nov 30, 10:49 AM
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Hurrah, the RIAA loses again :D
kiwi-in-uk
Jul 19, 07:02 PM
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?
OS X?
OS X?
PeteyKohut
Jul 18, 07:42 AM
List of things I don't want to hear one word about at the WWDC:
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
baddj
Mar 31, 04:48 PM
It shows up in both full screen and non-full screen. Totally agree though, it definitely looks better and less distracting in full screen.
Non-full screen: http://grab.by/9LUu
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
Umm i hope the hell you can change it back? if not well ill no longer be using ical ill find something else.
Non-full screen: http://grab.by/9LUu
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
Umm i hope the hell you can change it back? if not well ill no longer be using ical ill find something else.
dashiel
Nov 28, 12:52 PM
microsoft loses money on pretty much every product segment they have except office and windows. though xbox does look like it will be profitable soon enough.
gikku
Jan 2, 05:25 AM
Leopard for G3s, please.
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
A new low end range of desktops and notebooks with a core solo chip, for volume sales.
Mac Mini C2D 2.33Ghz
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
A new low end range of desktops and notebooks with a core solo chip, for volume sales.
Mac Mini C2D 2.33Ghz
1 comments:
I really like your site. Will keep checking back here.
BMW 325i Melbourne
Post a Comment