illa romza

imagine the data you could put onto those disks though!

Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)

Not possible: the iMac is not a workstation. Hopefully a big HD6xxx and a big hexa and quadcore are included.

I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.

Agreed. 64 GB and 128 GB SSD option would be nice (already posted this feedback to apple).

If Im not mistaken every KeyNote from Steve Jobs, whether at WWDC, MacWorld or any other event from Apple has been on tuesdays. Why is this one DIFFERENT. Could we see a Movie Store on Tuesday ???????

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Thank goodness .. Finally an iMac rumour ... I am still going to wait a bit more and buy it when the new iMacs ship with lion preinstalled .... July I guess

Really hoping for 1080p target display mode will be supported in the new iMacs ...

Could somebody give an overview of the price and performance range of this list of cards? Just numbers is kind of opaque.

Is Conroe pin-compatible with the iMac, though? I didn't think it was...and I definitely think that Apple should try to get a Conroe chip in that computer (or else release a mid-sized tower).

The Merom chip is pin compatible with the current iMac CPU, and I believe Apple will release an updated iMac using Merom. Intel is marketting both Merom and Conroe as Core 2 Duo, which is confusing...

The Mac mini will, it seems, get the Core Duo as standard. This is as I predicted a while back. The Mac mini, _will_ eventually get a Core 2 Duo, but not yet.... Apple will want to get the Mac Book Pro and the iMac updated first.

The update to the Mac mini line is more of a Marketting thing.... it allows Apple to boast that it's the only big manufacturer to use dual-core exclusively across the whole line-up.
:)

Touch interfaces don't NECESSARILY mean touchscreen interfaces.

The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).

There are lots of ways this could be useful. For example: touch input in a desktop environment could be useful for manipulating or selecting MULTIPLE buttons/sliders/whatever independently, and at the same time � which you can't do with a mouse.

iOS apps are designed for touchscreen operations. A trackpad would fail miserably as an input device for these. Think about it, how do you know where on screen you are touching if you're not directly touching the screen. Trackpads work because of the cursor indication the position on screen. Touchscreens don't require cursors because you are "directly" manipulating graphical objects.

It just doesn't translate well to one another.

Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?

Sorry, but EVERYTHING is politics. You cannot discuss economics and manufacturing without bumping into it.


I respectfully disagree. Politics to me is a bunch of idiots trying to sway my opinion with unbelievable arguments so they can garner my vote and maintain their little sphere of influence in government. Politics effects everything, but political arguments are generally a poor characterization of reality. In politics these days everything is demonized. People are polarized on one end of the extreme or the other. The day of bi-partisan compromise seems to be over.

Hence, I'd prefer it if folks saved their political debates for the threads in the political forum. I read this mostly to escape that garbage (i.e.: the unreasonably demonization of the half the population because of how they might feel about some social issue).

I have my own political views, and likely we agree on many things, we could rant forever on this forum -- but that's not what this forum is for and I'd hate for it to deteriorate into yet another place for such debates.

EDIT: Your remarks on my feelings on Communism are not correct. I feel very differently than you stated. But this is not the place to discuss that further. I doubt anybody who comes here cares.

I used it. It didn't work for me ):

I need to get the 07 STI rims mounted once the winter season is over.

'97 Subaru svx lsi

Word!! Here is my baby. First car I actually had to get a loan out for. Blah, debt. 2009 Subaru Forester 2.5X MT

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1280/4680266211_7972a35e50.jpg

I don't own the other cars.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4855348082_4c39d5ab04.jpg

A couple things I've done to her

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4569005703_73890f0a07.jpg

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?

so now you're going to say the US lost WW1 and WW2? :p

Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide. When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance". Even though the Brits did make a lot of neat weapons (as traditional to their roots), the US was the one who turned those into massive amounts of airplanes, carriers, and sophisticated radars for killing Nazi and Japanese air planes and submarines.

So I mean, without the Brits, the US might not have been able to make all those toys so fast, but without the US, the Brits would have fell. But in retrospect, I feel that the Allies would have won anyway...just that it would have ended with many more atomic bombs dropped all over the place by the US.

nice one... was looking to buy a mini to 'integrate' into my CAR... might wait now, then pick up a core solo intel for cheap! hopefully....

Andy Neff also writes "Apple noted that it has a number of products currently in development that are likely to be introduced over several years."


I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."

:D

Until they at least come close to matching the model that Mac The Ripper, Toast and Blockbuster 3 dvd postal rental gives me, I'll have to decline the Studios kind offer regarding rental rather than ownership.;)

Yeah, and I'm not going to buy another new car until the auto manufacturers match the deal I can get with a coat hanger, screwdriver, and pair of pliers. :rolleyes:

Just because it's cheaper to obtain illegally doesn't mean you're getting a bad deal when you acquire it legally. And it sure as hell doesn't make it right. Of course, it's obvious that concepts like right and wrong don't matter much in modern society. :mad:

Hi,

I have had a look at Macrumor's buyers guide. Except for the MacBook that is even very new, everything else is apparently only half way through its life cycle. So it would really be surprising if something got updated. Is this even more of a reason to expect someting REALLY NEW??:eek:

i agree... we should stop looking at current products and start thinking of possible things that are new. True video ipod, iTV, and even the iphone, though i doubt apple is stupid enough to enter the cellphone market.

I feel justified that this is the main reason we never heard ANY thing about Mac OS X at the keynote AND the WWDC (as far as I know), and each new update seems to be just fixes and security updates. So, I think apple is working on iOS X, or what ever the touch screen Mac OS is.


This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.

Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!

Yeah BETA sounds like we won't be getting it for a while :(

Ground up rewrite = a whole load of bugs.

It'll be interesting to see how many shops use this for production work when it's finally released.

Happy WWDC Eve everyone! May tomorrow bring you everything you wanted! :rolleyes: ;) :D

Josh

Am I supposed to leave out cookies? :p :D

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but people keep going on about ThunderBolt like it's gonna fill 200gig ipods in a minute and how you can copy 500gig files between computers in minutes...


That may be the case between ThunderBolt connected RAID arrays, and Macbook Pros with lightning fast SSD write rates,

but isn't the case that the 1.8inch HDD in the ipod wouldn't be able to write files to it's disk at anything close to ThunderBolt speeds, I wouldn't be suprised if USB2.0 nearly saturates these 1.8inch drive write speeds.


I agree that Thunderbolt is overkill until we have raided SSD, but my old FW400 ipod fills much faster than my new USB2 iPod Video, so I do not think that USB2 is saturating the drive. There are plenty of benchmarks out there showing that FW is significantly faster for sustained read/write operations. Thunderbolt could be thought of as the new firewire because it supports fast sustained transfer, can be daisy chained, and supports other protocols such as networking and video. Its potential is amazing! Imagine a computer of the future with one port on to which you can daisy chain your monitor and all your peripherals, and still have bandwidth to spare!

23" Imac is a great size. Add HD resolution then that's great.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.You must have been asleep for the past 8 months. Since the January Intel iMacs, they already have spaning support up to the 23" 1920x1200 external displays. The advance we need is DUAL-DVI so they can span to $2k 30" displays Apple would love to sell more of.

anyone else getting a little bit fed up of apples lawsuits?

I'm sure Apples getting fed up of all their competitors continuing to copy their products or piggyback off the work Apples done on iOS.

Unfortunately, when a company innovates, they have to deal with the rest of the world copying them. You can either sit back and let it happen and allow the copycats to steal the market from you with YOUR inventions, or you can do something about it. Apples chosen to do something about. Despite whatever bad press they may get from bozos who have no idea what they're talking about.

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..

excuse me, but WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN? JK! seriously tho, you should just do one of two things:
1)give up cuz ur obviously wrong and not gaining much support!
2)move to mars and live in your own little dream world where apple is dying.

apple did not have to create the ipod to stay profitable. they are debt free and have 5b in the bank. computers are making more the double what the ipod's making. c'mon man, do ur research! some mod should just delete this thread. it's pointless!