iRobby
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
Eidorian
May 3, 12:27 PM
If the monitors cannot daisy chain, you need a hub for the port(s) to which you connect multiple such displays.Thanks, I was just curious.
aaronfzr
Oct 13, 03:18 AM
wow, just as I figured buying a shiny new ipod wasn't totally necessary, they bring out a charity ipod.
well, if its in the name of a good cause, and will help wipe out aids and poverty, I guess its my moral obligation to buy a shiny new toy :)
well, if its in the name of a good cause, and will help wipe out aids and poverty, I guess its my moral obligation to buy a shiny new toy :)
Psychic Shopper
Sep 4, 07:20 PM
"This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder."
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
cuestakid
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
I think people need to remember that not every cell phone is avaliable on every carrier-meaning that if this phone is only on a couple of carriers, someone who's carrier isnt avaliable is gonna be whinning and complaining
balamw
Sep 19, 02:25 PM
Imagine how long the download would be if the movie was high def instead of 640 x 480.
Probably not quite as long as you might think. Less than 3x longer for 720p or 1080i, <6x longer for 1080p.
B
Probably not quite as long as you might think. Less than 3x longer for 720p or 1080i, <6x longer for 1080p.
B
LarryC
Apr 30, 11:04 PM
Two words: Future-proofing.
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 11:49 PM
http://johnpilger.com/videos
He's even got an awesome interview with Julian Assange. His documentary "The War You Don't See" is a must watch though.
You know what.....nevermind.
:rolleyes:
Why nevermind?
He's even got an awesome interview with Julian Assange. His documentary "The War You Don't See" is a must watch though.
You know what.....nevermind.
:rolleyes:
Why nevermind?
hcho3
Apr 19, 09:26 AM
Look at the phone logo.
Look at the the alarm/Clock logo.
They just copied.
Look at the the alarm/Clock logo.
They just copied.
cube
Mar 30, 12:08 PM
BurgStore
And Burg does not mean Burger.
And Burg does not mean Burger.
simX
Sep 19, 02:04 PM
Maybe when they get more than 75 movies. Amazon unbox started with like 2000 movies!
... and yet there is a conspicuous lack of a self-congratulatory press release from Amazon about their sales numbers. I suspect that despite Unbox starting with 2000 movies, they've sold less than 125,000 movies.
... and yet there is a conspicuous lack of a self-congratulatory press release from Amazon about their sales numbers. I suspect that despite Unbox starting with 2000 movies, they've sold less than 125,000 movies.
Cygnus311
Aug 28, 11:14 PM
I ordered the following iMac online yesterday and the ship date is shown as 9/12 (16 days from order date). Who knows what this means.
MAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-256MB SDRAM
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8X
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X
Country Kit
Estimated Shipped By Estimated Delivered By
Sep 12, 2006 Sep 19, 2006
You upgraded RAM and HD through Apple?
MAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-256MB SDRAM
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
500GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8X
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X
Country Kit
Estimated Shipped By Estimated Delivered By
Sep 12, 2006 Sep 19, 2006
You upgraded RAM and HD through Apple?
lmalave
Sep 27, 09:52 AM
I really hope Apple doesn't jump on the camera-phone bandwagon. Seems to go against their philosophy of having devices that do few things but to them far better. And it would make the phone useless to me. But that's just because my employers are sensitive about such devices, with the nuclear reactors and all.
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
Umm...apple makes computers, remember? I agree that the success of the iPod is largely due to its elegant and simple design, but Apple also makes MacBooks, iMacs, etc. that are consumer-focused, elegant, and easy to use, yet provide rich functionality.
The thing is, the mobile phone is moving inexorably to essentially be a universal handheld communicator/computer that used to be the stuff of sci-fi films. Acually, if you ask me, the primary "must-have" on the phone of the near-future is high-speed internet access (3G+), not music or camera features. That being said, i think the music and camera features go hand-in-hand with high-speed internet. I think in addition to being able to download songs, you'll be able to listen to iTunes radio stations through the iPhone (if not at launch, then eventually). And having mobile phones acting as video phones will become common, too. Can you say iChat on your mobile phone?
So there you have the long term vision of the iPhone: a phone enabled with iTunes mobile, iChat mobile, PhotoBooth mobile. Not to mention QuickTime mobile, Safari mobile (ok, no need here really - I'm happy with Opera mini), Mail Mobile, iCal Mobile, Address Book mobile, etc. Not to mention the ability to play both the new iPod games and the huge amount of Java Mobile games already available.
I have to say, I already own a Sony Ericsson phone that already has most of the above features. What I am looking for from the iPhone is
1) all the same features as my SE phone, except done a little bit better
2) more seamless integration with my MacBook (though I have 3rd party software do do everything now)
3) a true 3G multimedia phone experience (my T-Mobile contract was up just this month, and the only reason I haven't immediately switched to Cingular and gotten the 3.5G LG CU500 phone is because I'm willing to hold out a few months to see what the iPhone has to offer)
And signing on with Cingular or any other major carrier seems like an even bigger mistake. The only way to truly improve the cell phone user experience is to take them out of the picture and introduce a fair and simple billing system (i.e. MVNO w/ daily flat rate, iTunes-style micropayments).
Umm...apple makes computers, remember? I agree that the success of the iPod is largely due to its elegant and simple design, but Apple also makes MacBooks, iMacs, etc. that are consumer-focused, elegant, and easy to use, yet provide rich functionality.
The thing is, the mobile phone is moving inexorably to essentially be a universal handheld communicator/computer that used to be the stuff of sci-fi films. Acually, if you ask me, the primary "must-have" on the phone of the near-future is high-speed internet access (3G+), not music or camera features. That being said, i think the music and camera features go hand-in-hand with high-speed internet. I think in addition to being able to download songs, you'll be able to listen to iTunes radio stations through the iPhone (if not at launch, then eventually). And having mobile phones acting as video phones will become common, too. Can you say iChat on your mobile phone?
So there you have the long term vision of the iPhone: a phone enabled with iTunes mobile, iChat mobile, PhotoBooth mobile. Not to mention QuickTime mobile, Safari mobile (ok, no need here really - I'm happy with Opera mini), Mail Mobile, iCal Mobile, Address Book mobile, etc. Not to mention the ability to play both the new iPod games and the huge amount of Java Mobile games already available.
I have to say, I already own a Sony Ericsson phone that already has most of the above features. What I am looking for from the iPhone is
1) all the same features as my SE phone, except done a little bit better
2) more seamless integration with my MacBook (though I have 3rd party software do do everything now)
3) a true 3G multimedia phone experience (my T-Mobile contract was up just this month, and the only reason I haven't immediately switched to Cingular and gotten the 3.5G LG CU500 phone is because I'm willing to hold out a few months to see what the iPhone has to offer)
2nyRiggz
Sep 12, 02:13 PM
So is this ipod still a 5G or 5.1G.....well this ipod is not the big news of the day.
Bless
Bless
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:37 AM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
iGary
Sep 14, 10:15 AM
you can feel free to go ahead and explain yourself in your next post instead of just mindlessly making statements with nothing to back them up. thanks.
I already did that (explain myself) and you said I was ignorant for doing so - didn't leave me many options, really. :)
I already did that (explain myself) and you said I was ignorant for doing so - didn't leave me many options, really. :)
Machead III
Sep 19, 02:54 PM
It took my Black MB about 70 mins to download "Deuce Bigalow"
Why would you do that? :O
Why would you do that? :O
jelloshotsrule
Oct 27, 09:06 AM
How many trees were harmed in the production of their leaflets?
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
your logic is brilliant. since they had to use non-green items in spreading their information, then they are hypocrites and shouldn't push for improvement of materials. good point!
of course you ignore that there are many sources of recycled paper, soy based inks, etc etc which their leaflets could very well have been made from (though i don't know for a fact that they were.)
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
your logic is brilliant. since they had to use non-green items in spreading their information, then they are hypocrites and shouldn't push for improvement of materials. good point!
of course you ignore that there are many sources of recycled paper, soy based inks, etc etc which their leaflets could very well have been made from (though i don't know for a fact that they were.)
PeterQVenkman
Mar 22, 03:29 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Probably not until August at the earliest.
Probably not until August at the earliest.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 05:15 PM
I see Apple stock going up on this news. $100 Million is getting off easy. Could have been a LOT worse.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
The aftermarket response for AAPL has been negligible...down 21 cents on top of a 31 cent decline in regular trading. Creative, on the other hand, is now up 36% in after hours trading.
Auax
Apr 11, 09:50 PM
In fact, i hope one day i can use it to stream video. possible?
Selax77
Sep 5, 03:09 PM
anyone think well see the 6g ipod or the real ipod video
wizard
Sep 9, 01:42 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster. Though it's not the best implementation.
That is what I thought but like I said I don't follow Intel deeply. I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again. As to AMD I'm not 100% on their quad either but I think it is a single chip implementation. Maybe a few moths slower in coming but the impression is a solid offering.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
Dave
Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster. Though it's not the best implementation.
That is what I thought but like I said I don't follow Intel deeply. I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again. As to AMD I'm not 100% on their quad either but I think it is a single chip implementation. Maybe a few moths slower in coming but the impression is a solid offering.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
Dave
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 04:52 PM
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.