silentnite
May 4, 03:17 PM
I'm sure it will be sold in store as well. I just can't see apple cutting Amazon & all the other apple resellers out of the deal.
-aggie-
May 4, 04:19 PM
We have to go forward, otherwise we'll just end up back where we started and not have leveled up.
iCrizzo
Mar 29, 11:22 AM
Dropbox is the same, only difference and it is a big difference if you purchase music from Amazon and store it, you can re-download all your music, that is huge. I can't tell you how many times I have lost music purchased through iTunes.
Phobophobia
Nov 23, 09:47 AM
My future wife's (who I don't know yet) cat said
Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?
Did the cat also happen to take any photos of unreleased products in elevators?
Truffy
Jan 12, 09:45 AM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
griz
May 4, 02:55 PM
How so?
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
Not as often as you like. You buy one copy of Snow Leopard and it is good for one Mac. Family pack gets you 5.
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
Not as often as you like. You buy one copy of Snow Leopard and it is good for one Mac. Family pack gets you 5.
applekid
Apr 6, 05:51 PM
Motorola, run that Super Bowl ad again! :p
The competitors still don't seem to get how to beat the iPad. You see tablets that aren't $500 or have non-tablet OSes. Really, RIM and Palm are probably going to be the only real competitors this year. They seem to get the price and OS part. Google and its partners are just releasing incomplete products.
The competitors still don't seem to get how to beat the iPad. You see tablets that aren't $500 or have non-tablet OSes. Really, RIM and Palm are probably going to be the only real competitors this year. They seem to get the price and OS part. Google and its partners are just releasing incomplete products.
bloodycape
Apr 18, 03:41 PM
Yes, the interface do looks similar, but one thing most people are forgetting here is that it's not the home screens that look alike it is the Touchwiz app drawer that looks similar to the home screen, not the Touchwiz home screen.
GGJstudios
Jan 12, 10:42 AM
I'yes I'm a Mac user, and yes it has detected files with problems.
What kind of problems, exactly? Windows malware? Mac malware?
What kind of problems, exactly? Windows malware? Mac malware?
Amdahl
Nov 2, 09:23 PM
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
Then get Apple to release security updates for longer than 24 months.
The availability of these products is good news for anybody who is getting tired of paying Steve.
Then get Apple to release security updates for longer than 24 months.
The availability of these products is good news for anybody who is getting tired of paying Steve.
SteveRichardson
Aug 7, 02:58 PM
Yea okay so I'm leaving for Chicago on the 22nd of this month for school and I really wanted to get a MBP with merom before then.
boooo I'll have to settle for the current chips, which I'm sure are great anyway.
boooo I'll have to settle for the current chips, which I'm sure are great anyway.
THX1139
Aug 7, 10:30 PM
I wonder if those processors are soldered. I suppose they aren't since it's build to order? Anyone know if there is a way to verify that? It would be nice to finally get a machine from Apple that won't be cost prohibitive to upgrade to faster chips later.
complexcommunic
May 7, 05:20 PM
This would be really awesome. I've always been intrigued by mobileme but turned away by its price tag
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.)
mi5moav
Sep 11, 09:11 AM
Can't wait, especially for photokina. Hopefully, that new Apple VideoCamera will make it's appearance. I need one so badly. My brother is having a kid and I need something youtube. Can't wait Can't wait.
IntelliUser
Apr 10, 12:22 PM
And that is, people, why Math sucks.
roland.g
May 4, 03:54 PM
On yesterday's MacBreak Weekly they were talking about this. The consensus was that the d/l version will be ultra cheap similar to SL b/c Apple wants people to migrate quickly. And then there will be a retail box that will sell for more for those who either can't or don't want to d/l. There is a patter of this in iLife, iWork, Aperture, etc., where the d/l version is much less expensive than the retail box.
And I'm fine with that. Bought Aperture when the Mac App Store debuted because of the new price. However, while people will say "partition your drive for OS and Apps and another partition for data so that you can wipe the OS partition for installs, etc." - because I like to do a clean install of the OS when I get it, and typically with a new machine I still reinstall it without all the languages, print drivers, fonts I won't ever need, I don't want to get a new iMac now and then in a couple months install Lion clean after just setting up the new machine. I'll wait. Get the new iMac with Lion. Wipe the OS and reinstall it slimmed down. Then add my Apps and data.
And I'm fine with that. Bought Aperture when the Mac App Store debuted because of the new price. However, while people will say "partition your drive for OS and Apps and another partition for data so that you can wipe the OS partition for installs, etc." - because I like to do a clean install of the OS when I get it, and typically with a new machine I still reinstall it without all the languages, print drivers, fonts I won't ever need, I don't want to get a new iMac now and then in a couple months install Lion clean after just setting up the new machine. I'll wait. Get the new iMac with Lion. Wipe the OS and reinstall it slimmed down. Then add my Apps and data.
MShock
Mar 30, 07:56 PM
Are there any new internet or network features? Is internet access built in differently to take advantage of the cloud as the major news sources claim?
More to the point, I'll be interested in the new focus after 10.7 b/c the new team head is focused on internet tech and cloud services� I want to see something like Chrome OS but can run native apps with a radically new UI, something simple like Sony's Rachel UI for the Xperia X10, or the PS3 UI� or even iPad UI...
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God� please! License something or develop your own� HFS+ is old and dead. We should, at minimum, have a 64-bit system, with clones, and full disk encryption. Maybe links to cloud/web services in a unique way no one have thought of yet� Just get rid of all the redundancy and crap to make a super efficient machine�
More to the point, I'll be interested in the new focus after 10.7 b/c the new team head is focused on internet tech and cloud services� I want to see something like Chrome OS but can run native apps with a radically new UI, something simple like Sony's Rachel UI for the Xperia X10, or the PS3 UI� or even iPad UI...
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God� please! License something or develop your own� HFS+ is old and dead. We should, at minimum, have a 64-bit system, with clones, and full disk encryption. Maybe links to cloud/web services in a unique way no one have thought of yet� Just get rid of all the redundancy and crap to make a super efficient machine�
leman
May 6, 01:58 AM
If ARM is indeed able to make high-performance CPUs, then a move like this would be one of the most significant ones in the computing history. Let's face it: the x86 architecture is a dead end. Its needlessly complicated and builds on obsolete tech. Internally, the modern x86 CPUs aren't even x86 anymore - they decompose, recompile and reorder the machine code as they execute it. The ARM assembly is more suited for modern computing as it is more efficient as the x86 code and allows better CPU pipeline utilization.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
*LTD*
Apr 25, 09:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
"As many observers have noted, the iOS location database does not record exact GPS data, instead seeking to pinpoint the locations of Wi-Fi access points and cell towers that the device comes within range of"
So what's all the fuss over? It shows what cell towers you were near. OMG!!
"As many observers have noted, the iOS location database does not record exact GPS data, instead seeking to pinpoint the locations of Wi-Fi access points and cell towers that the device comes within range of"
So what's all the fuss over? It shows what cell towers you were near. OMG!!
gugy
Jul 30, 01:19 AM
I don't think I've hated any company so passionately as I hate Verizon. I have not one positive word to say about them. If/when Apple announces a phone, I'll pay the early termination fee on my Verizon contract and jump to the carrier with Apple's phone. Hopefully that'll be Cingular.
Interesting I am the opposite of you. I hate Cingular and I am OK with Verizon.
The big question is if whatever Apple comes up it needs a good network.
What good will be an amazing phone with a crap network and service. In the past I had Cingular and just hate it. Now I have Verizon, I do not love it but at least I can use it at my home and office and IMHO is better than Cingular.
So I just hope I can have an Iphone that actually works wherever I go.
Interesting I am the opposite of you. I hate Cingular and I am OK with Verizon.
The big question is if whatever Apple comes up it needs a good network.
What good will be an amazing phone with a crap network and service. In the past I had Cingular and just hate it. Now I have Verizon, I do not love it but at least I can use it at my home and office and IMHO is better than Cingular.
So I just hope I can have an Iphone that actually works wherever I go.
tsadi
Mar 31, 04:27 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Maybe they'll just call the next release Cat? Cat5? Meow? LOLcat?
Oblig LOLcat:
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lion-lolcat.jpg
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Maybe they'll just call the next release Cat? Cat5? Meow? LOLcat?
Oblig LOLcat:
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lion-lolcat.jpg
j26
Jul 30, 06:55 AM
I hope it will be a GSM phone. If the AppleBerry rumors are true, then that would be sweet, too.
If it's not GSM it will be a massive failure. Focusing on a relatively small under developed market (the US) would be silly when a vibrannt global market is out there. Europe, Japan, and most importantly China (proobably the biggest growing market for phones) all work on GSM.
If it's not GSM it will be a massive failure. Focusing on a relatively small under developed market (the US) would be silly when a vibrannt global market is out there. Europe, Japan, and most importantly China (proobably the biggest growing market for phones) all work on GSM.
firestarter
Mar 31, 03:51 PM
No, $20 a year. The "buy a song" promo is a one-time offer. After the year, it drops back to 5GB free.
Less than half the price of Dropbox, much much cheaper than iDisk.
Online storage doesn't get much cheaper - but if you don't want to spend the money then don't buy it.
Less than half the price of Dropbox, much much cheaper than iDisk.
Online storage doesn't get much cheaper - but if you don't want to spend the money then don't buy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment