Benjy91
Mar 27, 05:56 AM
Going to be fun on my 500MB data limit.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
lilo777
Mar 29, 11:23 AM
i dont like this new idea of storing purchased media in the cloud. The thing that immediately comes to mind is more restrictions for our purchases. More limitations to make the end user cough up more money.
Nobody forces you to store your music there. You can always store it on your computer if you want. Funny how you can see extra feature as a "limitation". I bet that when Apple offers similar service (just more expensive) you'll call it a "revolutionary" feature.
Nobody forces you to store your music there. You can always store it on your computer if you want. Funny how you can see extra feature as a "limitation". I bet that when Apple offers similar service (just more expensive) you'll call it a "revolutionary" feature.
Hastings101
May 3, 06:20 PM
I remember in elementary school, learning about the metric system since we were all going to switch to it. That never happened. I wonder why....
Too hard for some people to learn and there's already a system that works just as well in place.
Too hard for some people to learn and there's already a system that works just as well in place.
Mac-Rumours
May 4, 04:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
MovieCutter
Aug 4, 11:35 AM
How many people plan to dump their Core Duo Macs for Core 2 Duo Macs?
Already sold my MBP 17" and my 20" iMac and are shipping them out this weekend...he he he.
Then again, I have two reasons to have the latest and greatest shiny new thing.
1) I have a terrible disease that causes me to do this.
2) I edit everything from 30 second commercial spots to feature length documentaries and I need to have all the speed I can get.
Already sold my MBP 17" and my 20" iMac and are shipping them out this weekend...he he he.
Then again, I have two reasons to have the latest and greatest shiny new thing.
1) I have a terrible disease that causes me to do this.
2) I edit everything from 30 second commercial spots to feature length documentaries and I need to have all the speed I can get.
grahamperrin
Dec 24, 01:11 AM
Kaspersky …is a lot heavier on system resources.
With Sophos, users may find heaviness in different ways.
The default number of WorkerThreads seems to make the system unusable for some users of the current version of Sophos. That's heaviness of one sort.
A higher number of WorkerThreads, for which there's no GUI, will use resources in a different way. That's heaviness of a different sort.
A system that's consistently usable is a must, so for as long as there's uncertainty around http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Unable-to-complete-login-after-reboot/m-p/1027#M599 I should recommend approaching SAV with caution, and with readiness to work around things from the command line.
With Sophos, users may find heaviness in different ways.
The default number of WorkerThreads seems to make the system unusable for some users of the current version of Sophos. That's heaviness of one sort.
A higher number of WorkerThreads, for which there's no GUI, will use resources in a different way. That's heaviness of a different sort.
A system that's consistently usable is a must, so for as long as there's uncertainty around http://openforum.sophos.com/t5/Sophos-Anti-Virus-for-Mac-Home/Unable-to-complete-login-after-reboot/m-p/1027#M599 I should recommend approaching SAV with caution, and with readiness to work around things from the command line.
xPismo
Jul 21, 10:25 PM
Regarding hot laptops:
Tell me about it!
Add a pro book that lasts ~5hours and I'd be one happy man. Lets hope Apple can crack the heat / battery / weight triangle of pain this time around.
Tell me about it!
Add a pro book that lasts ~5hours and I'd be one happy man. Lets hope Apple can crack the heat / battery / weight triangle of pain this time around.
iStudentUK
Apr 18, 03:00 PM
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
They know it is just business, not personal.
They know it is just business, not personal.
braddouglass
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
Prices way to high.. just buy an external hard drive.. even if you bought a ridiculously expensive fireproof one it would be more practical
mcmlxix
Apr 7, 10:53 AM
Maybe if enterprises really get on board, then sales will ramp up. But businesses are going to run three months of tests before they role out the big blackberries for the staff.
3 months? My company is *still* testing Windows 7. It *may* be rolled out the end of this year.
3 months? My company is *still* testing Windows 7. It *may* be rolled out the end of this year.
ovrlrd
Mar 30, 07:17 PM
Anyone downloading and installing on an MBA?
Wondering about trim support.
TRIM support was in the previous build as well so there is no reason for it not to be there still unless there was a major bug (doubt it).
Wondering about trim support.
TRIM support was in the previous build as well so there is no reason for it not to be there still unless there was a major bug (doubt it).
ozone
Nov 26, 10:33 PM
Not. Gonna. Happen. The tablet market is very small, and for good reason. Why use a tablet when a laptop fits the bill? Or a PDA? It's a glorified scribble toy. Apple's not going to try and grab such a miniscule market. There's no reason to even try.
You naysayers are a tiresome lot. I've read so many "tablets are stupid" related comments in the last year or so it's ridiculous. Interestingly, many of the comments don't seem to come from ACTUAL tablet users. Sure, they're not perfect, but then again, all my students want one, quite a few other professors use one, and I see more and more of them being used in class. How many of you have tried to type notes in a meeting where it would just be plain impolite, but you need more than just pen and paper? In fact, the main complaint is NOT that the tablet form factor is limiting - it's the OS. They all want Mac OS X.
Remember that the world didn't want a minivan until Chrysler created it either. Keep THAT in mind. Don't knock what you don't know.
You naysayers are a tiresome lot. I've read so many "tablets are stupid" related comments in the last year or so it's ridiculous. Interestingly, many of the comments don't seem to come from ACTUAL tablet users. Sure, they're not perfect, but then again, all my students want one, quite a few other professors use one, and I see more and more of them being used in class. How many of you have tried to type notes in a meeting where it would just be plain impolite, but you need more than just pen and paper? In fact, the main complaint is NOT that the tablet form factor is limiting - it's the OS. They all want Mac OS X.
Remember that the world didn't want a minivan until Chrysler created it either. Keep THAT in mind. Don't knock what you don't know.
Cboss
May 2, 07:55 PM
According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#20th_century), the metric system was supposed to be almost fully implemented in the US by 2000, but because of a lack of enough public and government support through the 70s-90s the program essentially got shut down.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
Macaroony
May 3, 01:52 AM
My margarine is in metric. As is my moo-cow-****-milk, and many other things :D
Don't forget the chocolate moo-cow-****-milk!
I buy that in liters.
Don't forget the chocolate moo-cow-****-milk!
I buy that in liters.
kjs862
May 7, 12:10 PM
Ok in a nutshell here's why iDisk and Drop Box have speed differences.
iDisk:
You are creating a WebDAV tunnel to the storage server that must remain open and in sync with your Mac. You drop a file on the iDisk icon and it transfers that file to the server.
Drop Box
Drop Box sits on top of Amazon's S3 storage. What they've done is built up the front end so that when you drop a file on your Drop Box it caches the file locally and then syncs to the cloud "behind the scene". So when you open a file sitting in your Drop Box it feels like working on a local file because you "are" working on the local file. Any changes made from you or anyone the file has shared with will be sync'd in the background.
Most people don't understand the fundamental differences between iDisk and Drop Box. If Apple was to build a front end to iDisk that stored the file locally and then sync'd over WebDAV in the background they'd be able to offer the same performance.
Hope this helps.
Wow great information. I'm sure Apple will change MM's tech in such a way to give better speeds. I mean, this sever farm has be used for this sort of thing... I hope.
iDisk:
You are creating a WebDAV tunnel to the storage server that must remain open and in sync with your Mac. You drop a file on the iDisk icon and it transfers that file to the server.
Drop Box
Drop Box sits on top of Amazon's S3 storage. What they've done is built up the front end so that when you drop a file on your Drop Box it caches the file locally and then syncs to the cloud "behind the scene". So when you open a file sitting in your Drop Box it feels like working on a local file because you "are" working on the local file. Any changes made from you or anyone the file has shared with will be sync'd in the background.
Most people don't understand the fundamental differences between iDisk and Drop Box. If Apple was to build a front end to iDisk that stored the file locally and then sync'd over WebDAV in the background they'd be able to offer the same performance.
Hope this helps.
Wow great information. I'm sure Apple will change MM's tech in such a way to give better speeds. I mean, this sever farm has be used for this sort of thing... I hope.
Sky Blue
May 9, 10:28 AM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this so far, but to me it is very obvious the reason why some features will be free.
The iChat and a/v integration on the next iphone.
Obviously iChat needs either a mobile me email address, or an AIM username, or some other less common ones.
Needless to say, AIM is not very popular outside of USA. Everyone uses hotmail or gmail afaik.
If they really want to plug the new iChat, they need to get as many people using it as possible, so therefore the @me email addresses will probably become free, and maybe more features with it
Couldn't they have people use their iTunes account?
The iChat and a/v integration on the next iphone.
Obviously iChat needs either a mobile me email address, or an AIM username, or some other less common ones.
Needless to say, AIM is not very popular outside of USA. Everyone uses hotmail or gmail afaik.
If they really want to plug the new iChat, they need to get as many people using it as possible, so therefore the @me email addresses will probably become free, and maybe more features with it
Couldn't they have people use their iTunes account?
applesith
Apr 26, 02:20 PM
Apple should have to keep working hard to keep customers. Stay innovative Steve and company!
ChrisTX
Apr 20, 07:32 AM
This model promises to be one that many will pass on.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date. However don't count your chickens before they hatch!
Here's another one:
Stop making phones out of effing glass!
5 people I know have had shattered glass (on either the front or the back) of their iPhone 4s less than year into ownership. It's a bloody phone -- it's not a museum piece or collectible. It's going to get used, it's going to get dropped or fall off a table occasionally, and it needs to be at least minimally able to survive a 2 year contract.
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date. However don't count your chickens before they hatch!
Here's another one:
Stop making phones out of effing glass!
5 people I know have had shattered glass (on either the front or the back) of their iPhone 4s less than year into ownership. It's a bloody phone -- it's not a museum piece or collectible. It's going to get used, it's going to get dropped or fall off a table occasionally, and it needs to be at least minimally able to survive a 2 year contract.
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
MacsomJRR
Nov 27, 01:09 AM
As a student I would LOVE to have a Mac tablet with a screen maybe a little bigger than an A4 sized piece of paper. It would be so helpful to be able to scribble notes down and I sure that Apple could come up with some fantastic and creative software for note taking and the like. It's exciting to think this could actually finally by happening sometime next year. Look for my MBP on ebay if this actually happens:):D
Shivetya
May 6, 05:22 AM
WOW.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
First step to a totally closed system. Pretty soon all our applications we want will have to come through the App store for our Macs. The day I see that is the day I turn my Mac OFF.
I will go back to Windows in a heart beat if I am forced to buy my applications and such through Apple.
Thunderhawks
Apr 5, 01:33 PM
Me too.
Huntn
May 3, 09:19 AM
Metric system should be in the U.S.. No point in keeping an odd system.
For manufacturing, my impression is that the U.S. does use metric. Maybe that is because most stuff is manufactured overseas or for something like automobiles, they are marketed worldwide.:o However for living around town, I like my miles, inches, gallons, and pounds.
For manufacturing, my impression is that the U.S. does use metric. Maybe that is because most stuff is manufactured overseas or for something like automobiles, they are marketed worldwide.:o However for living around town, I like my miles, inches, gallons, and pounds.
seashellz
Apr 7, 05:38 PM
Ha ha! Way to go Apple!!!! Kill the competition any way you can!!
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
thats why i love capitalism
the stupid, (RIM) by failing to plan, are planning to fail and get left behind...
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
thats why i love capitalism
the stupid, (RIM) by failing to plan, are planning to fail and get left behind...
No comments:
Post a Comment