daneoni
Sep 1, 02:26 PM
I think it'll be a crime for Apple not to use Conroes in the iMac, they withstood the G5 processors so i dont see any reason as to why they cant do the same for Conroe. Using only merom or xeon processors is just to big a gap and is not ideal. Worse it may plumet the iMac sales unless there is a must have feature in the new revision.
Why would i want to upgrade from a current core duo imac to a merom imac when the performance difference is only 10-15% at best...for a desktop it makes no sense whatsoever and that means the iMac would purely be form over function. The again Apple fans tend to buy anything no matter how illogical
Why would i want to upgrade from a current core duo imac to a merom imac when the performance difference is only 10-15% at best...for a desktop it makes no sense whatsoever and that means the iMac would purely be form over function. The again Apple fans tend to buy anything no matter how illogical
narfed
Aug 16, 10:11 PM
I may be talking out of my ass here, but my understanding is that Sirius works via satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which means they are way way up there, "locked in" above a specific spot on the ground (they zip around the Earth once every 24 hours, which keeps them above the equatorial spot that is also zipping around a full rotation in 24 hours). It would be physically impossible for a receiver on the "other" side of the world to see a satellite above central America. Maybe Sirius has several satellites, but still if they only officially serve the US market I can't see these venturing any further East/West than the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts (maybe a little out into the Pacific to serve Hawaii better). I seriously doubt that they'd have a satellite where someone in, say, Bombay could hook in.
The other issue that comes up is angle of ascention. While it's a nice just-off-vertical and tilted south for the US customers, once you start moving east/west (or to the extreme north/south) you start making it a far more horizontal angle. Which means, living in an area without a clear horizon you will get poor results. Moreover, the smaller the angle of ascention, the more atmosphere the signal has to go through, causing connection issues.
I could be wrong. Maybe Sirius foolishly wastes its money providing satellite service to the other half of the world just for the small market of folks who are adventurous enough to open a US account just to sign on. Or, maybe they market world-wide service as a key feature for traveling businessmen (possible, but that makes me even less likely to subscribe!) Doesn't seem likely though.
He's talking about streaming over the Internet, not picking up a satellite signal.
The other issue that comes up is angle of ascention. While it's a nice just-off-vertical and tilted south for the US customers, once you start moving east/west (or to the extreme north/south) you start making it a far more horizontal angle. Which means, living in an area without a clear horizon you will get poor results. Moreover, the smaller the angle of ascention, the more atmosphere the signal has to go through, causing connection issues.
I could be wrong. Maybe Sirius foolishly wastes its money providing satellite service to the other half of the world just for the small market of folks who are adventurous enough to open a US account just to sign on. Or, maybe they market world-wide service as a key feature for traveling businessmen (possible, but that makes me even less likely to subscribe!) Doesn't seem likely though.
He's talking about streaming over the Internet, not picking up a satellite signal.
diamond.g
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
rasmasyean
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
The AWACS involved are owned and operated by NATO. There may not even be US personnel on board.
Not according to this guy...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42285224#42285224
He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral.
There are rumours of UK and US special forces on the ground coordinating strikes as well.
I'm sure they've been "on the ground" even before the "no-fly zone". And most of them prolly speak the language and look like them. Especially if they plan to individually target forces that will open up an invasion of a town. They would need to gather personal intel with some of the rebel leaders and go out to scout and designate specific targets. Just if they die, they become one of the rebel casualties or something. That velcro patch with the US flag under it is just Hollywood BS. :p
Not according to this guy...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42285224#42285224
He even says that European Command is headed by a US Admiral.
There are rumours of UK and US special forces on the ground coordinating strikes as well.
I'm sure they've been "on the ground" even before the "no-fly zone". And most of them prolly speak the language and look like them. Especially if they plan to individually target forces that will open up an invasion of a town. They would need to gather personal intel with some of the rebel leaders and go out to scout and designate specific targets. Just if they die, they become one of the rebel casualties or something. That velcro patch with the US flag under it is just Hollywood BS. :p
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:15 PM
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
I think you are missing the point:
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
Example:
Shop that sells windows cannot trademark "Window Seller" because it describes precisely what the shop does. It is generic + descriptive = no trademark.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
I think you are missing the point:
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
Example:
Shop that sells windows cannot trademark "Window Seller" because it describes precisely what the shop does. It is generic + descriptive = no trademark.
ozreth
Nov 25, 12:31 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
arkitect
Mar 22, 12:51 PM
goddamn i can't make a joke on these forums.
Sarcasm on an internet Forum never works well. :p
Besides you didn't type it in blue. ;)
Sarcasm on an internet Forum never works well. :p
Besides you didn't type it in blue. ;)
daneoni
Aug 7, 03:27 AM
Anyone got any ideas of when the keynote starts in the good ol UK?, i'm guessing 6pm ish?
prady16
Oct 23, 09:38 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
This has been so for a loooong time now. Probably over a month.
The correct link is: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intel.html
I guess the webmaster is just sleeping on the job!
Or is too busy preparing new pages for the *redesigned* MBP! :D
Edit: Oops deputy_doofy beat me to it!
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
This has been so for a loooong time now. Probably over a month.
The correct link is: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intel.html
I guess the webmaster is just sleeping on the job!
Or is too busy preparing new pages for the *redesigned* MBP! :D
Edit: Oops deputy_doofy beat me to it!
shawnce
Jul 19, 10:38 PM
Interesting... (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/07/19/apple.grows.16.in.us/)
MacMan86
Apr 23, 12:03 PM
It's fun reading about people who try to justify privacy invasion because Apple does it but would be raising a ruckus if it was Microsoft or anyone else. The double standard and blind following is funny.
If that is your idea of fun, you really need to get out more.
See my post above for innocuous reasoning behind all of this. It's nothing like as sinister as you would like to believe. Data is not being sent back to Apple.
If that is your idea of fun, you really need to get out more.
See my post above for innocuous reasoning behind all of this. It's nothing like as sinister as you would like to believe. Data is not being sent back to Apple.
HecubusPro
Aug 29, 05:42 PM
Amen to that. I give this about as much credibility as an apple rumor scrawled in sharpie on a gas station toilet stall.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
Chadder
Mar 24, 05:12 PM
So has anyone stuck a 6970 in a mac pro yet?
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Object-X
Nov 27, 08:26 PM
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 09:30 AM
Capitalization does not impact trademarks like you claim. "App Store" is the same as "app store".
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used. Windows vs. windows, App Store vs. appstore/app store. "My house has windows," "My computer runs Windows." "I bought this on the App Store," "Modern smartphones have apps that can be purchased from their respective app store(s)." I don't believe Apple needs to include "Apple/iOS/The" before "App Store" to be granted a trademark patent on the term, its style (font, image/icon, etc.), or its brand. It's my understanding that a trademark must include these things and more, which is something that cannot be generalized. (And if I'm not mistaken, the capitalization would at least assist, from a visual cue when looking at the written language, in determining the context of the term in simple sentences like I've presented.)
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used. Windows vs. windows, App Store vs. appstore/app store. "My house has windows," "My computer runs Windows." "I bought this on the App Store," "Modern smartphones have apps that can be purchased from their respective app store(s)." I don't believe Apple needs to include "Apple/iOS/The" before "App Store" to be granted a trademark patent on the term, its style (font, image/icon, etc.), or its brand. It's my understanding that a trademark must include these things and more, which is something that cannot be generalized. (And if I'm not mistaken, the capitalization would at least assist, from a visual cue when looking at the written language, in determining the context of the term in simple sentences like I've presented.)
eddietr
Jan 11, 09:44 PM
Seeing how many people complained about the new keyboards, a touch keyboard would generate even more flamed passions...
True.
But I actually loved the keyboard when I used it. So much so that I bought one for my MP.
True.
But I actually loved the keyboard when I used it. So much so that I bought one for my MP.
johnnyham
Jun 24, 10:52 AM
As is the norm for most rumored Apple products... it's been done before to some extent. In this case, a company in Valencia, CA, humorously called Troll Touch (http://www.trolltouch.com) (wonder if they hang out on forums much?) performs touchscreen upgrades to virtually any Mac product. As I understand it, the majority of their customers are businesses (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/macworld-touchscreen-mac,news-417.html) that use touchscreen iMacs as point of sale machines, equipped with the [/url="http://www.xsilva.com"]Lightspeed POS[/url] software. And no, POS does not stand for what you call your '79 Ford Pinto.
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
I could see there being a strong market for systems like these, especially considering the markup Apple could put on them. I've worked heavily with Radiant POS systems which run XP Embedded and used a few other XP Pro software packs and CE based devices - most of which crashed on a weekly basis. When running a retail/restaurant business, the last thing you want is to lost precious time and customers due to a faulty system. Macs have a great reputation with not crashing, so I can see why a smart business owner would see the advantage of investing in a few of these.
As for incorporating iOS in there, I could see it being a very light "embedded" version of OS X that would be great for running on smaller, less powerful computers - much like XP Embedded. Kind of like what it is already, except capable of being run on other hardware platforms.
And finally, I could see an iMac-based Surface-like Mac. You know, tabletop computing and all. Not as much market, but pretty dang cool, even if Microsoft has done it before. We all know Apple's always trying to one-up Microsoft.
Be as it may though, I couldn't see Apple pumping out a consumer-level touchscreen iMac. For anything other than light, 15 minute usage, it would be a real pain. I couldn't see many non-business owners buying one. I'm putting my money (har har) on seeing an Apple produced iMac POS either running OS X or a slightly beefed up form of iOS. What do you think about the name OS X$?
PeteyKohut
Jul 14, 01:22 AM
The only Mac Pro model that will have Blu-Ray will be the top of the line machine, as was the case when DVD-R was first introduced. If you remember, it was the G4 733 Mhz, right before the Quicksilvers came out. People who buy the top of the line machines rarely care abou the cost.
dmcgann
Sep 8, 03:58 PM
i think apple will announce a hard drive specifically for these downloads approx the size of a dvd player! you put it on top of your dvd player and you can download the movie to the hard drive through airport! you can then wirelessly control the hard drive with your computer! this would make high def a possibility! just a thought!
islanders
Jan 3, 07:55 AM
I agree about the word processor. I never could understand why Apple didn�t offer a few more features to make AppleWorks useful.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
I�m using FrameMaker, but that was discontinued for OSX on Mac.
Too many mine fields in Word.
I was set on a new lap top and Mini, but it�s going to be a difficult decision. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, and sometimes the Mac community isn�t as forthcoming and honest as they should be. It�s like they are more concerned if the stocks go up or down than providing an accurate assessment.
My first powerbook was good to me, but the climate/quality has changed, and I�m going to keep my options open.
I�ll wait and see what�s behind curtain number three, but not sure a Mac is the best choice for the average person.
Brianstorm91
Jan 11, 04:54 PM
But the current MacBook is 13.3" and not a Pro model :confused:
I call fake.
I call fake.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:12 PM
I hope this one is as fun and entertaining as MWSF 06 was, what with Paul otellini coming out in the intel bunny rabbit suit and delivering the chip so to speak :rolleyes:
MagicBoy
Feb 24, 07:46 PM
Mmmm, Golf TDI. Cracking cars. I went for the bargain option - Golf GT TDI mechanicals in the slightly smaller Skoda Fabia. Some american friends who run older Merc diesels we had over were very surprised by the refinement and power of it.
Wikipedia (yeah I know!) have some more information on the RA420 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze#Powertrains. Appears to be quite popular unit with the Far Eastern manufacturers. A little surprised Chevy/Daewoo/GM went to VM when they've got their own joint manufacturing operation with FIAT as used in the Opel/Vauxhall ranges.
Wikipedia (yeah I know!) have some more information on the RA420 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze#Powertrains. Appears to be quite popular unit with the Far Eastern manufacturers. A little surprised Chevy/Daewoo/GM went to VM when they've got their own joint manufacturing operation with FIAT as used in the Opel/Vauxhall ranges.
noservice2001
Aug 24, 08:24 PM
c'mon apple, i promise to buy one when its released...