iBorg20181
Oct 24, 01:43 AM
Which is all the more reason to be fairly sure a C2D update is imminent. And we probably shouldn't expect too much from this update...
I'm expecting Apple to have addressed cooling issues through better heatsinks combined with better fan control software, possibly better fans too. The 160GB HD should be added as a CTO option as it's available for the Mini, but don't expect any change to the overall design or a new HD bay. Possibly faster DVD writers, but don't expect DL support for the 15" MBP or MB. Just about everything else that people keep wishing for is probably out of the question until a major overhaul takes place.
Sure hope you're wrong about the MBP HD bay, which is, IMHO, a major design flaw in current MBP design! :eek:
I'm not expecting a major redesign, but if they're changing things to address the current heat problem, hopefully they'll throw in a few extras! Bigger HD BTO options should be a given (why the hell has Apple held out for this long! 120GB max in a BTO is inexcusable!), and hopefully they'll have a faster superdrive (8x), even if DL DVD-burning can't be squeezed in.
Well, we'll hopefully see in a little over 7 hours!
:D
iBorg
I'm expecting Apple to have addressed cooling issues through better heatsinks combined with better fan control software, possibly better fans too. The 160GB HD should be added as a CTO option as it's available for the Mini, but don't expect any change to the overall design or a new HD bay. Possibly faster DVD writers, but don't expect DL support for the 15" MBP or MB. Just about everything else that people keep wishing for is probably out of the question until a major overhaul takes place.
Sure hope you're wrong about the MBP HD bay, which is, IMHO, a major design flaw in current MBP design! :eek:
I'm not expecting a major redesign, but if they're changing things to address the current heat problem, hopefully they'll throw in a few extras! Bigger HD BTO options should be a given (why the hell has Apple held out for this long! 120GB max in a BTO is inexcusable!), and hopefully they'll have a faster superdrive (8x), even if DL DVD-burning can't be squeezed in.
Well, we'll hopefully see in a little over 7 hours!
:D
iBorg
Sodner
Apr 19, 11:58 AM
Didn't they (Apple) say something about a more "mainstream priced" iMac? Perhaps a white 17"?
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 10:37 AM
I think it's a fair question to ask as well. Since all phones have this issue to one degree or another, why is it Apple who got singled out? Because they are the mindshare leaders. If you are Greenpeace and you want to get publicity, call out Apple. If you are Consumer Reports and you want headlines, call out Apple.
When the iPhone 5 comes out, I guarantee there will be stories published about signal issues with it. It's now the standard playbook to use against Apple, and the media goes along with it.
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
But I wish they would not feed the anti-Apple FUD playbook. Yes, Apple absolutely should be called out for a design flaw, one that they are going to fix, but let's not blow it out of proportion the way it was. And let's not be hypocritical and call out Apple while giving a pass to everyone else with similar issues. That's the problem I'm focusing on.
When the iPhone 5 comes out, I guarantee there will be stories published about signal issues with it. It's now the standard playbook to use against Apple, and the media goes along with it.
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
But I wish they would not feed the anti-Apple FUD playbook. Yes, Apple absolutely should be called out for a design flaw, one that they are going to fix, but let's not blow it out of proportion the way it was. And let's not be hypocritical and call out Apple while giving a pass to everyone else with similar issues. That's the problem I'm focusing on.
AidenShaw
Aug 25, 11:37 PM
Bingo! Bring on the iMac Ultra with Conroe, 23" display and a powerful GPU. Now that would be an immediate purchase for me.
...also known as The New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box!
The problem with the all-in-one form factor of the iMacIntel is that when the LCD dies - you have a good computer that you can't use. And if the computer dies - you have a good screen that you can't use.
Or, more likely, when the computer is obsolete you have a good screen that you can't use.
Apple needs something between the horribly constrained MiniMac, and the preposterously huge ProMac.
A Conroe (64-bit, single-socket, dual-core) system would fit the bill.... When will The Steve see the light?
...also known as The New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box!
The problem with the all-in-one form factor of the iMacIntel is that when the LCD dies - you have a good computer that you can't use. And if the computer dies - you have a good screen that you can't use.
Or, more likely, when the computer is obsolete you have a good screen that you can't use.
Apple needs something between the horribly constrained MiniMac, and the preposterously huge ProMac.
A Conroe (64-bit, single-socket, dual-core) system would fit the bill.... When will The Steve see the light?
THeKiNGs
Mar 30, 03:06 PM
If tonyfailx86 is now a source for rumors, we have to get another "job"...
THe KiNG.
THe KiNG.
floatingspirit
Jan 12, 01:36 PM
................... I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
Here, here! Though I use the optical drive plenty at home or in the office, I have never carried my laptop to a place with the intention of using or playing a cd or dvd. I would love the option to have a slimmed down macbook. In fact, I might carry it around even more just because it's that much easier to do.
Barnzee
Apr 12, 08:17 PM
will final cut express get an update too?
twoodcc
Dec 12, 12:15 AM
congrats to mc68k for 8 million points!
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
nilk
Mar 25, 01:50 PM
You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now. It might not be 'officially' supported but you can still do it.
Supposedly the 5870 won't work on Mac Pro 1,1 with specific firmware (MP11.005C.B08 won't work).
From a comment at store.apple.com:
With regard to the Mac Pro 1,1, it apparently depends on your system's firmware and your version of Mac OS X. If your firmware version is MP11.005C.B00 or MP11.005D.B00, it should work. If your Mac Pro's firmware version is MP11.005C.B08, it will NOT work. If you have the correct firmware, you must have at least Snow Leopard 10.6.4 to use the card to its fullest.
Supposedly the 5870 won't work on Mac Pro 1,1 with specific firmware (MP11.005C.B08 won't work).
From a comment at store.apple.com:
With regard to the Mac Pro 1,1, it apparently depends on your system's firmware and your version of Mac OS X. If your firmware version is MP11.005C.B00 or MP11.005D.B00, it should work. If your Mac Pro's firmware version is MP11.005C.B08, it will NOT work. If you have the correct firmware, you must have at least Snow Leopard 10.6.4 to use the card to its fullest.
crashnburn
Mar 26, 03:51 PM
Awesome news, I recomend the ATI 5870. It can be found for only $200 and it more than holds it's own against the latest and greatest from Nvidia and ATI. It's only 6 percent slower than a 6950. The 6950 on the other hand can be flashed to a 6970 quite easily but it costs abot $260.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
Where can I see a comparative of all cards? Or do a comparison of select cards?
Um, I believe credit for this should actually go to netkas:
http://netkas.org/?p=679
He (with rominator) reported over a week ago that the 10.6.6 build with the ThunderBook Pro's can drive PC Radeon 6xxx cards as is.
Is this confirmed or still ...?
this is AWESOME news for all the hackintosh people out there.
Although, my Radeon HD5570 isn't on this 'supported' list, I still got it to work... all resolutions including quartz extreme enabled. :D:D:D
Nice :) What version of OS are you using?
Where I see ThunderBolt being useful is in scenarios where you want to use it at your desk and have all the advantages of a desktop machine. So you put your MBP on your desk and connect via ThunderBolt:
* A drive array with several 3.5" drives, possibly in RAID configuration
* An external video card that is driving a 30" 2560x1600 display with two 1200 x 1920 displays (rotated) on each side of the 30"
You wouldn't bother to use the laptop display for this configuration (I wouldn't at least).
Though, ThunderBolt supposedly allows for daisy-chaining at least 2 monitors, in which case you could run off the laptop's internal video card, but then you need compatible monitors that allow daisy-chaining.
Personally I'd love to see external video cards compatible with ThunderBolt (I use my laptop mostly at my desk), or possibly an enclosure you can put a regular desktop video card in.
I'd like external video cards as well :)
Macrumors needs to seriously consider using this tonymacx86 as a reliable source. As I stated before he gets info from other sources, and this is often highlighted by others
See this quote ex Netkas...
6950 AND 6970 DO NOT WORK IN ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE VERSION OF OSX FOR MACS OR HACKS !!!!
THE NEWS STORIES THAT WERE LIFTED FROM HERE ARE INCORRECT !!!!!
DON'T BUY A 69XX CARD UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO WAIT A FEW WEEKS (OR MONTHS) TO USE IT IN OSX !!!!!
OK, done my part. And if you still think they work, go ask your buddy "Tony" how to make them work.
Sad but macrumors - please take more care.
Hmm.. Interesting conflict of information.
imac_japan
Mar 28, 08:48 PM
They could do alot more.......That's all I'm going to say cause Im going to work...
Please sign the petition
P.S The point i'm trying to make is that Apple will always be a small company who thinks they affect the PC industry. The same thing happens every time, Apple makes something cool - The PC world makes the profit
Please sign the petition
P.S The point i'm trying to make is that Apple will always be a small company who thinks they affect the PC industry. The same thing happens every time, Apple makes something cool - The PC world makes the profit
vincenz
Feb 23, 02:36 PM
This is my first Mac computer so nothing special but I love it.
Nice place to start for sure.
Nice place to start for sure.
Eraserhead
Nov 27, 01:30 PM
I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.
I WAS the one
Jun 23, 08:30 PM
iOS and Mac OS will merge. Very slowly over the years. Eventually,This sounds great to me! I can imagine Photoshop don't count on adobe products pal, Apple wants you to use Apple products and grab to your seat ... I bet it will be just one way to install apps... The AppStore pro. We are screwed.
Veinticinco
Mar 23, 04:24 AM
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
*LTD*
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
You mean made easier to use?
Lethal
You mean made easier to use?
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:27 PM
""Magnetic Timeline": audio moves vertically out of the way instead of causing a trim collision"
YEAH!
YEAH!
petej
Jul 18, 02:30 AM
Movie rentals good. I rarely watch a movie more than once so this would suit me fine. I don't rent as much as would like to currently because I hate the trudge of taking the damn thing back to the rental store.
Movie subscriptions bad. I don't watch enough of them for it to be worth my while to subscribe to any Movie service. Work and kids make sure of that.
Movie download to own - no way. The last thing I want to do is fill up my HD with mountains of films that I'll probably never watch again and then have to back them all up to CD/DVD.
Kid's movies - These do get watched over and over again so hey, I can buy the DVD.
Now what would be cool added value is if I could choose the movie I want to rent from anywhere in the world and get it downloaded to my playback device (doesn't have to be a mac as such could just be an apple media center box) at home so that it is sitting waiting there when i get back. That could be great use for WAP / 3G mobile phones.
Streaming movies are hopeless. My broadband may be fast but it still suffers from way too much congestion at my ISP for this to be reliable for anything other than a low res movie.
Movie subscriptions bad. I don't watch enough of them for it to be worth my while to subscribe to any Movie service. Work and kids make sure of that.
Movie download to own - no way. The last thing I want to do is fill up my HD with mountains of films that I'll probably never watch again and then have to back them all up to CD/DVD.
Kid's movies - These do get watched over and over again so hey, I can buy the DVD.
Now what would be cool added value is if I could choose the movie I want to rent from anywhere in the world and get it downloaded to my playback device (doesn't have to be a mac as such could just be an apple media center box) at home so that it is sitting waiting there when i get back. That could be great use for WAP / 3G mobile phones.
Streaming movies are hopeless. My broadband may be fast but it still suffers from way too much congestion at my ISP for this to be reliable for anything other than a low res movie.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
nospeed411
Apr 21, 06:57 PM
Ok all I want to know is why the hell is Al Freaktard still allowed to breathe my air???
TangoCharlie
Aug 25, 05:47 AM
Both are pro-features, so it will be VERY unlikely that we will see them in the Mini.
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Personally, I'm not convinced that the mini is going to go Core 2 at all... I think we might see the "Solo" going "Duo" and the CPU speeds up'd a bit, that's all. Maybe, just maybe, the top-of-the-line Mac mini might get a Core 2 (Merom)..... :)
batitombo
Apr 21, 10:58 PM
This is what I think about this: http://youtu.be/O6b9P963jW8?hd=1
redAPPLE
Nov 28, 10:14 AM
imo, like in sports, a loss is a loss.
