dime21
Apr 20, 09:26 PM
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
corywoolf
Oct 23, 09:46 AM
I can tell you the CompUSA I work at is all out of them, that never happens. We are also out of the iSight and Airport Extreme. Any day now Apple!
cube
Mar 24, 02:44 PM
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
OpenCL are COMPUTE tasks. If you can't do them on the GPU, you would need a HUGELY powerful CPU. That's why having true OpenCL means you have a better "CPU".
In one or two months after Bobcat Fusion was introduced there are already 50 Fusion-oriented Windows apps.
I'm not taking about DirectX 11 concerning games, but concerning OpenCL.
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
OpenCL are COMPUTE tasks. If you can't do them on the GPU, you would need a HUGELY powerful CPU. That's why having true OpenCL means you have a better "CPU".
In one or two months after Bobcat Fusion was introduced there are already 50 Fusion-oriented Windows apps.
I'm not taking about DirectX 11 concerning games, but concerning OpenCL.
turbineseaplane
Jun 22, 02:08 PM
Exactly. When did the keyboard and mouse become public enemy number 1? These technologies have been perfected over years and years of real use.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Yeah. This story does absolutely nothing for me.
My interest in "touch screen desktops" is so low I can't even describe it.
If Apple introduces a touch iMac it's clearly a money grab, to sucker the public into thinking touch is somehow superior when in fact it is vastly inferior on a desktop monitor.
Yeah. This story does absolutely nothing for me.
My interest in "touch screen desktops" is so low I can't even describe it.
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.
milo
Jul 19, 04:49 PM
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels
That's exactly what I meant. I still think that's very impressive.
That's exactly what I meant. I still think that's very impressive.
razzmatazz
Sep 6, 02:34 PM
i know this is off topic but are they ever gonna do anything about the outrageous cost of .Mac subscription?
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
How is it expensive? 99$ a year is $8.25 a month...thats not bad!
AppliedVisual
Oct 24, 02:27 AM
Why would Wenesday make more sense?
Because all the current Apple rebates and promotions in the USA (and I believe a few other places) are good only on purchases made on or before 10/24 (tuesday). 10/25 obviously places the release after that date... It also coincides better with the Apple London Expo and the Adobe Event in Vegas.
Then again, Apple released the iMac update silently and with no correlation to any other event. And the Apple printer promotion was going on then and instantly good with the new models.
I guess we'll find out shortly, eh?
Because all the current Apple rebates and promotions in the USA (and I believe a few other places) are good only on purchases made on or before 10/24 (tuesday). 10/25 obviously places the release after that date... It also coincides better with the Apple London Expo and the Adobe Event in Vegas.
Then again, Apple released the iMac update silently and with no correlation to any other event. And the Apple printer promotion was going on then and instantly good with the new models.
I guess we'll find out shortly, eh?
CIA
Apr 13, 01:11 AM
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
I second this.
I second this.
itsmeGAV
Feb 8, 05:52 AM
It's keeping the OEM 17s, I look the OEM+ look. It's simple and good looking.
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
Fairplay man, the car still looks badass, but you ever thought of de-badging it?
joshellis625
May 2, 04:33 PM
I think this is pretty awesome. I know that currently all you have to do is drag the app to the trash but it always bothers me that it could leave leftover files in Library, etc., which is why I use AppCleaner. I think having this more streamlined and comprehensive way of removing apps would be a lot better.
ssspinball
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
I'm a satisfied iPhone 4 owner, but what CR is doing is perfectly reasonable/logical. Kudos to them.
cube
Mar 24, 04:24 PM
Which is not even out yet. Brazos/Zacate and Ontario are the ones I'm referring. Let me edit that out.
Yes. And there are conflicting reports about whether Llano will be released in Q2 or Q3. Not such a long wait for a consumer which is not in a hurry.
In general, Zacate wins over Atom.
Yes. And there are conflicting reports about whether Llano will be released in Q2 or Q3. Not such a long wait for a consumer which is not in a hurry.
In general, Zacate wins over Atom.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 05:18 PM
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost… it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome… lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run, Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
Damning with faint praise! In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars, but I don't expect the Cruze to be anything other than a cheap-n-cheerful small car - solid but unexceptional. It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
And we never got to see it here. :mad:
While I haven't driven the Insignia over in Europe, the Regal drives solid and is very stable. So I don't think they did any modifications to the suspension.
A SPEED TV show went over to Europe to drive a US Spec Buick Regal and drove it on the autobahn and nurburgring.
I haven't had any experience with the new Regal, but on paper it certainly looks like a substantial improvement over the previous iterations.
I agree. If you look at "small" cars these days, they really aren't that small. Of course, what made the Mini special was packaging, and I don't think we've seen a revolutionary new "package" since the Mini.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome… lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
Chevy definitely has a lot of work to do to establish a brand presence in Europe - especially since Opel already covers so much territory with its lineup. Apart from niche vehicles like the Corvette, there isn't much of "American" Chevy that can make the transition to Europe. And in the long run, Chevy can't rely on rebadged Korean cars.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
Damning with faint praise! In the context of this thread I am happy to see a Cruze diesel come to the US, and I think the Cruze will be an improvement over previous GM small cars, but I don't expect the Cruze to be anything other than a cheap-n-cheerful small car - solid but unexceptional. It is true that their biggest problem is coming up with a reason to buy it over other similarly anonymous cars.
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
And we never got to see it here. :mad:
While I haven't driven the Insignia over in Europe, the Regal drives solid and is very stable. So I don't think they did any modifications to the suspension.
A SPEED TV show went over to Europe to drive a US Spec Buick Regal and drove it on the autobahn and nurburgring.
I haven't had any experience with the new Regal, but on paper it certainly looks like a substantial improvement over the previous iterations.
coffey7
Sep 6, 08:37 PM
I rather just buy a dvd for $10-20. I'm not downloading anything from the apple store for that price.
louiek
Apr 21, 07:15 PM
has anyone actually used the app in question? The data is so wildly inaccurate as to make it pointless. Even recompiling it with a 1000 times more accuracy has me placed in locations I haven't been to since I go an iPhone. So the question is not one of data, per se, but data accuracy: law enforcement have known about this for ages. If my iPhone says I was near a scene of crime, but I disagree, I bet I know which side the police would go with. That is the trouble with this data.
How did you do this? I'd like to map our recent holiday to France and all the tiny little towns we passed through but who's names I didn't document.
How did you do this? I'd like to map our recent holiday to France and all the tiny little towns we passed through but who's names I didn't document.
jwp1964
Sep 7, 09:09 AM
A good idea, just poorly executed.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
kadajawi
Sep 7, 04:31 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Detlev
Jul 18, 08:30 PM
Only way this works is if Apple makes the movie available for download/rental a week or two before DVD release (or earlier, like hotel PPV).
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
Will not happen. First, any internet connected person with 3 ounces of will can get a bootlegged copy of movies still in the theatres never mind later. Second, the early release of a movie by Apple would set off a tizzy from goliaths like bn.com, amazon.com, Walmart, NetFlicks and others. Third, if the extrapolations are correct and the videos are several GB then people with not so new computers (small HD) and/or slow connections will be left out. You've got to think of the masses not just the MacRumors regulars. It just doesn't fly.
Oh, and I agree with those who say WWDC will not be or should not be the place for announcing this. Again, think of the masses. This would be holiday season material. Plan on upgrades in the third quarter.
vga4life
Apr 3, 01:08 PM
Cranking up the hype machine when the product is out of stock every where is classic Apple.
Annoying.
Annoying.
Fukui
Mar 24, 10:57 AM
Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable.
Marc
Amazon.com anyone?
Marc
Amazon.com anyone?
Ping Guo
Jun 23, 11:09 AM
Lay the iMac on it's back, and it all becomes clear. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen.
Why would I lay an iMac on its back? There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen, are you sure? I can think of many things that are a lot more frustrating. Perhaps you're obsessive-compulsive?:p
Why would I lay an iMac on its back? There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen, are you sure? I can think of many things that are a lot more frustrating. Perhaps you're obsessive-compulsive?:p
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 01:44 PM
I am still really surprised that it seems as if nobody else has had the greyed-out toolbar in fullscreen Safari bug that I've got. Has anyone heard or read something that I haven't? I am much more looking forward to the next preview/beta build now, it suffices to say. ;)
Jacquear
Jun 24, 11:14 AM
have fun carrying an iMac :)
Lol! There will be someone who tries it I'm sure
Lol! There will be someone who tries it I'm sure