I only hope it has two mouse buttons (a la "mighty mouse") so those people defending a single button mouse saying "It isn't so bad to press the control key" can just stop the silly charade.
but... it isn't so bad to press the control key, really... you act like my hand isn't on the keyboard anyway...
it looks rather tedious to collect them all the time, by the time you put them in the reader, you stop the datamining. It would be much nicer if you could just but the reader closeby and read out the data over bluetooth or something. And who needs something like that anyway?
Any number of scientists and engineers could make use of such devices. Sure, you stop the datamining as soon as you pick up the device, but the idea ( should you want continuous data ) is that you put down a new one when you pick up the previous one. Real-time access to the data might not really be that interesting ( you're likely looking for macro-level trends, not single events ). Also notice that there are voltage-level sensors among others, it's not just about weather.
once Motorola gets their head out of their ass and starts putting them out in volume. Funny, that was supposed to happen in October.
That's not funny. That's sad. I'm not in the market for a computer any time soon, but stuff like that makes me very happy for Apple that they made the Intel decision.
I'm drooling over the prospect of a 2+ghz dual G4 upgrade
That's a more than $500 upgrade... I guess it *might* make sense, as long as you don't want a faster FSB and graphics card as well...
Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.
Well, they don't make everything up. They report stories that "sources" give to them. Maybe now they ( and some of their readers ) will realize that Apple feeds them BS before big announcements.
They kept talking about iBooks and Mac minis, and I kept thinking "what low-end chips will they put in the mini? Boy, those Powerbooks haven't seen any real upgrade in ages, I thought the Intel switch was all about getting better portable options, and... why would there be an iBook update before a PowerBook update?" It turns out I was right. Maybe I should start Mac rumor site:-)
Prediction: look for minis and iBooks soon after affordable Core Solo chips are shipping. You read it here first !
Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list?
only in that they're items shown at MacWorld Expo, actually. That's it. It's pretty typical that most things shown at MacWorld also support other computers or operating systems.
Mac are still so expensive, but all those nice gadgets, the migthy mouse clone, those things, white and shiny, that where utterly inaccesible for the "mass" of the PC users becose "MAC compatible" would hardly means that it will run on PC, now all those "niche gadgets", will be PC compatible! Oh
yes! with less effort...
Honestly, what on earth are you talking about ? Name one current piece of hardware that works on a Macintosh but does not work on a PC.
Maybe the Mighty Mouse should 'just work' as a USB mouse, it's even supported by Apple under XP. Maybe the ball might not work 'just right' without some other software support ( maybe? ) but I can't think of anything else that's an external device that wouldn't work at least to some degree with a PC... maybe some USB audio devices ? Couldn't you just write drivers for those? Aren't there PC equivalents? How does Apple being on Intel make writing a Windows driver for, say, a Griffin iMic any different than it is now? BTW, I checked, and actually, the iMic supports XP... what's the hardware you're talking about that will be affected by the Mac Intel switch, exactly? I've tried, including with the example of the Mighty Mouse you've given, but they're *all* PC devices, it seems.
Plenty of PC stuff still won't really work on a Macintosh, though, just because a Macintosh isn't going to have 'legacy' stuff like RS232 parallel ports or PS/2 inputs, but anything else was ( and is ) still going to be a matter of writing supporting software- which still puts the OS with less market share at a disadvantage, no matter how easy developing for OS X is. The Intel switch doesn't change that, and for most gadget-makers it doesn't change anything, except the perception of folks like you.
All of this stuff is Mac-specific only in that it was being shown at MacWorld Expo. A ton of MacWorld Expo stuff is also PC-compatible... but that's nothing new. As for PC makers ( and others ) cribing Apple hardware design, that's nothing new, either, and I don't see how it could really get more prevalent than it already is.
I admit that they haven't come out and said that "it won't have a hard drive built in" they certainly haven't said that it will either.
Isn't the common opinion that they'll have a small, removable hard drive as an ( undoubtably expensive ) option, i.e. not included in the base price?
I always assumed that was the whole reason behind the Xbox 360 Core, so that people would go to the store and see a 360 Core for $299 and a PS3 for $499(good luck even getting that low!) with identical hardware(minus blu-ray*) and make the simple decision to get the Core+3 games for the same price as the PS3 with no games.
I'm massively confused by that sentence. Do you mean the PS3 won't have Blu-ray? Or that the 360 won't have Blu-ray ? I'm going to have to assume that you mean the 360 won't have Blu-ray, since that's going to be the case... the PS3 most certainly will have Blu-ray.
With that clarification, I'm going to have to say I'm not sure the choice between a 360 Core + 3 games and a PS3 with no games is a "simple" decision, especially if you have an HD display and/or a library of PS2 games.
I mean, sure, you can get 3 games if you go the 360 route... but to really use the much-desired online features of the Xbox, you'll want the Premium system anyway. If you might want to watch HD movies sometime, you'll need to spend even more and have yet another component in your A/V rack.
I'm not really sure where people will go either way, but this is far from being an 'easy' choice, and you have to remember these are adults buying these things, for the most part, not kids. "It only plays games" is not a feature. Sony is going to try to position this so that anyone looking at XBox360 Premium+HD-DVD is going to see a price much higher than a PS3 bundle. Sony will also be able to point at ( probably pretty expensive ) high-end first-generation Blu-ray players which make the PS3 look like a *screaming* deal. If Sony can also manage to have a game lineup that rivals or beats the Xbox... that would be a bad thing for Microsoft.
Linux dominates the server market, and the NASA says it sucks.
That wasn't a "Linux sucks" for servers, so much as it was "we have more experience with and trust in the stability of Solaris" for servers.
But they use Linux for desktops, where the market is dominated by Windows - which sucks.
This looks like ( mostly ) a personal preference of the engineers- but they get these x86 laptops ( or desktops ) and need to communicate with Solaris servers, so what would you run? Like them, I'd run some sort of Linux... more for the apps than the OS, which some folks might perhaps find ironic or something.
Christina Aguilera, or whatever we play for them
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, if they're in Gitmo, terrorists listen to Christina Aguilera... yea, I couldn't make that up if I tried.
If you look at the article, scan down to "Dripping Water or Playing Christina Aguilera Music". If that's not a human rights violation, I don't know what is...
You know if this was Sony or Microsoft there would be howls of anger and the pitchforks and torches would already be out. Apple does it and; "hey, they're swell guys but I don't know how comfortable I am about this".
Yea, I'm about as worried about Apple knowing my musical tastes as I am about Amazon knowing my reading preferences. As in... not at all.
If you're the type that's worried about Amazon and Google tracking you with cookies and such, then yea, it's nice to know about this ( and the fact that they don't track you when the mini-store is hidden ). I guess I'm just not that paranoid... I'm actually quite happy to tell everyone what kind of music I like. I'd even tell you, if I thought you wanted to know.
I'm frankly much more paranoid about Google keeping records of my searches and gmail messages, but even that... I mean, if you use credit cards, Apple knowing your music preferences is the least of your worries.
I had trouble editing video on a PowerBook with FireWire 400 and a PowerMac G4. When I upgraded to a PowerMac G5, using its FireWire 400, the problem disappeared. So my point is that differences that people attribute to using a slow interface are actually due to a slow processor. This is probably what Apple discovered in testing
I guess I'd have to ask details like "what sort of trouble did you have editing video", but the point I was making is that I *frequently* edit video on an 800Mhz G4 iMac without issues. Also, the point of an interface like Firewire is that the CPU is completely uninvolved in the I/O transfer; your CPU should technically have no impact on your Firewire performance.
I doubt that they simply abandoned FireWire 800 customers without some thought.
I'm sure they didn't, too... I think they noticed that everyone is using USB 2.0 hard drives, and that Firewire400 is *faster* than even an HD data stream requires. I think they thought about it very, very carefully, and decided that the extremely small number of Powerbook users who absolutely require Firewire800 performance would be savy enough to get an ExpressCard Firewire800 adapter.
I hope they create a 17" Intel PowerBook
I'm sure it's just a matter of time... but it'll probably be at least 8-12 months, so you'll have at least a little bit of time to enjoy that 17" laptop before getting *too* grumpy.
Speaking of which, what about the Shuffle? I've got one (before the Nano came out) and like it, but it's treated like a red-headed stepchild, apparently... even by Apple!
Well, at least they aren't constantly coming out with new shuffle models that make yours "obsolete", huh?!?
Besides, it's not so much the red-headed step-child as it is the "starter model"... what do you want them to do to the shuffle, anyway? For what it is and does, it's perfect... but they can't really throw more memory at it, you put too many songs on a stick and it really starts to need a screen. Short of doing things they shouldn't ( like releasing a Firewire model that works with my no-USB-2.0-G4-iMac ), I can't think of a single thing they could do to the shuffle to improve it, can you ? Maybe they could add a radio, but... meh. Radio sucks, that's the point of MP3 players in a way...
Thinking that Apple is overly concerned about piracy ignores the company's history of not using any kind of restriction or guard against software copying.
Until the Mac OS X 10.3.4 version of OS X that shipped with their Intel Developer Kit, you would be right about that.
To be clear, nobody at Apple is terribly worried about someone taking a copy of OS X and putting it on another Apple computer. They never really have been. What they're concerned with is someone taking a copy of OS X and putting it on a Dell.
I imagine their negotiations with Intel are a big reason that Yonah isn't being called Pentium-Y etc.
Actually, the Yonah is called Core Duo T2300, T2400, T2500 and T2600. Core Solo chips will also be available, later, and will be Core Solo with a (1) after the number- not exactly "G5"-style marketing names, really. Your speculation is interesting but conflicts with what I've seen elsewhere- the Intel shift is more related to well-publicized problems they've had getting the Pentium line to scale well ( er, Itanium ) and their shift to non-clock-speed numbers to rate performance.
If they *are* making significant product design decisions based on the fear of OS X getting onto some Dell somewhere, then they're fools.
I wouldn't argue with that... but it does appear that's what they're doing. I'm guessing they're still remembering how Mac clone makers nearly ate their lunch. Otherwise, why *not* replace the Mac mini and and iBook with cheaper, low-end Intel chipsets? Mom wouldn't bother to pirate OS X and stick it on a $600 Dell, but she *would* like to buy a $600 Mac mini. She can't afford the $1300 iMac, though, and already has a monitor... you're saying Apple is ignoring her just because she doesn't want to spend more? It's easy enough to slap together a Pentium-M mini-PC you'd think they'd do it... unless there's something that's not supported by the older chipset which is really important to Apple. Like, keeping someone from buying a computer that's $300 or so cheaper than a Mac and installing OS X on it, mostly... just my guess, but I think that's it... I'm just not easily convinced that selling Apple-branded Pentium-M ( or cheaper ) systems cheap in the "mini, iBook and eMac" segment is something that Apple wouldn't like to do... they'd love to entice switchers to try out OS X on those 'starter' boxes, *except* that doing so would mean released a non-DRM'd OS X. You say they don't care if we steal OS X to run it on non-Apple hardware, but the DRM in the developer OS on the developer Intel boxes suggests otherwise.
Apple has fought hard to regain some educational market and low-end footing. It's not that they don't want it... it's that they have to focus on more profitable segments first, and they don't have a chip to put in those low-end machines right now, because the Pentium-M supports chipsets they don't want to run on. My guess as to why they don't want to run on them could be wrong, but like I've said many times... Apple has shown an inclination to put Trusted Computing-based DRM in their Intel OS.
Apple has very heavily advertised PowerBooks for field video work.
Good point, I hadn't really thought of that. I suppose that's only going to be a *real* problem for people doing HD video, though, huh? I mean, I don't know what the cause of your problems were, but I've *never* had problems importing DV via FW800, even on a ( really ) 800Mhz G4 iMac... maybe there was a controller issue you were having?
In any event, the "MacBook Pro" is undoubtedly much more ready to edit video on-the-go than current PowerBooks, and FW400 is fine for importing DV-quality video, and USB2.0 is there as well, so... I'm guessing the only issues that might *really* arise fo rthe on-the-go video editor is if they're doing HD or want faster access to disc drives than FW400 or USB2.0 offer. Sadly, I see a lot of things going to USB2.0...
Of course, I suppose you could always use that ExpressCard slot to host a Firewire 800 card, though, couldn't you? Since it's such a specialized need, I guess Apple could be forgiven for providing the ports more commonly needed...
For that matter, the new iMacs are likely to outrun all current PowerMacs but the dual dual core. That's bound to be a bit of a marketing problem.
Only if selling iMacs instead of PowerMacs is a problem, really, I guess:-). They'll get their PowerMacs updated by the end of the year, probably in less than 6 months or so... I'm guessing it's not really going to be a problem. Forget PowerMac sales, though... who is going to buy a Mac mini now??
The mini and iBook will probaby use Core Solo processors that are not available yet.
I frankly think this is the most likely explaination ( though details as to why use Core Solo and not some existing Celeron are left as an exercise for the reader ), but will they be cheap enough to fit into the existing price structure?
I don't think Apple is very paranoid about OS X winding up on a few Dells.
Then what's the rationale for not producing a Pentium-M or Celeron-based Mac mini ?
They're sticking to the new chips so they can use the new DRM-laden chipsets... either that's to protect the software, or to protect future content DRM... I think it's to protect the software, but I guess I could be wrong. In any event, I think they'd love to be able to sell a cheap-ass Clereon or Pentium-M -based Mac mini, but can't because they want Intel's new chipset... thus no currently available low-end Mac Intel. Maybe when single-core Yonahs are released, if they're cheap enough, or when Memron chips replace the high end... but I think it's the thought of OS X running on someone's home-built ( or Dell ) machine that has Apple stuck on Intel's newer chipset.
I don't use firewire for anything that _requires_ 800 speed, but don't some people, especially video people need this, and couldn't this be an issue for them?
One of the many things I like about my PowerBook is that I can plug anything into it -- including FW800. Any ideas here?
Pro video people use PowerMacs. If I'm not wrong, can't FW800 devices drop down to 400 speeds? So those FW800 devices ( if you find one ) would still transfer data to your FW400 device... just slower...
t's not my intent to troll. I honestly believe what I'm saying here, and I am in fact done with the Mac. The Apple tax used to come with superior technology, which made it worth it. Now it doesn't. So I'm done.
I can't mod you troll, I don't have mod points.
However, if you think it's the chipset which made Apple the better computer system, I would prefer to mod you ( -1, Uninformed ) instead.
Unless you're doing some Altivec-optimized floating-point math, your G5 iMac has no chance in any native code application benchmark against a Duo Core iMac... and Apple laptop performance has been joke compared to Intel laptop performance for quite some time, unless you measure performance by battery life. It's sad, but it's true. And yet, I have prefered to work with Apple hardware, despite the fact that it's a little slower, just because OS X and OS X applications are so much easier to deal with than any of the alternatives... although the hardware design is nice, it's not the underlying chipsets and performance that makes me want to use Apple's systems, it's OS X and the programming tools.
If you don't get that the CPU is not the most important consideration when picking a computer system, then, well... have fun with Windows or whatever OS you're going to use when you finally have to replace your current Mac years and years from now . I'm still running my first-generation flat-panel lamp-style iMac at home, with no plans to replace it, personally... it's a great machine that does everything I need to do quite quickly enough.
Plasma is being dumped as the garbage it is. And yet, it was HOT a year ago. People were still buying them this christmas, not having "read the memo", or kept current.
Actually, plasma screens look great, but the memo that people didn't get is that they die after a relatively short time- like 5 years or so. Hopefully most of the people who bought them planned on replacing them in 5 years anyway, since they have enough cash to spend $5,000 anytime they see a new shiny object.
A lot of people must have missed the SNL skit where Steve Jobs introduces the ipon iMini, then says "Its' obsolete"
No, we saw it. There just wasn't enough in your original post to make anyone think that's what you were referencing. If you'd mentioned the iPod invisible, we would have gotten the joke. Without something more specific to the skit or a link to a transcript or something, your original post just looks stupid and incorrect, not funny.
We've been lied to horribly for the last 3-4 years. Clock for clock intels are as powerful as PowerPC.
Meh. You bought the marketing you wanted to buy. The PowerPC chips were better at floating point operations, especially Altivec-optimised ones, and those were the benchmarks that Apple showed you and screamed about. Now they're on the other side of the fence, and so they have to talk about integer performance, because that's where the Intel chips are better.
This new Intel chip is neither 64-bit nor does it have floating point performance similar to a G5 at a similar clock speed. That hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that the PowerPC chips relatively suck at integer math.
the smug sense of superiority that I bought with the Mac has been wiped out.
Unless you were just smug about the superiority of the software, or the nice design ( not performance ) of the hardware, then is was a false sense of superiority anyway... unless you were specifically looking at optimized floating-point performance, of course.
Anybody else see the logic of transitioning the consumer desktop and pro laptop first, rather than... some other combination?
What machines does Apple make the largest markup on ?
Profit is the only motive that makes sense to me. Consider that Apple knows it's going to be seeing a somewhat limited supply of chips and chipsets from Intel. With that as a given, where do they want to put those chips- in low-margin designs like the Mac mini and iBook, or in higher-margin designs like the desktop and pro laptop ?
Also, what chipset would Apple put in a lower-end machine ? I'm going to guess that due to Apple using Trusted Computing crap to keep you from building your own MacIntel and pirating OS X, they're not going to use any chipsets ( and thus chips ) that are pre-Yonah, so the low end of what they have right now is the slower 1.3-1.6Ghz Duo Core chip... too powerful and expensive for real low-margin machines, so... no low-end Mac Intels for now, and we won't see any until Intel introduces newer chips that can move in on the high end, maybe. Of course, I'm just speculating, but nothing else makes sense to me... I don't think there's a pure market-based reason for Apple to abandon the low end, I think it's just what they're able to do right now.
Too bad, too, I think that if Apple weren't so paranoid about OS X ending up on a Dell, they'd be able to make a seriously cheap Mac mini based on a Pentium M or something...
Slashdot Mirror
but... it isn't so bad to press the control key, really... you act like my hand isn't on the keyboard anyway...
Somehow, that sounds less horrible than using the Windows Media Player... ;-)
Now, with the exception of the MacBook Pro itself, that may be the best news out of MacWorld yet!
Supposedly some incompatibilities with QuickTime 7.04 (released yesterday).
How very... typical. Any details as to the problems? Should we hold off on installing it? Does it work with 7.04 at all?
Any number of scientists and engineers could make use of such devices. Sure, you stop the datamining as soon as you pick up the device, but the idea ( should you want continuous data ) is that you put down a new one when you pick up the previous one. Real-time access to the data might not really be that interesting ( you're likely looking for macro-level trends, not single events ). Also notice that there are voltage-level sensors among others, it's not just about weather.
That's not funny. That's sad. I'm not in the market for a computer any time soon, but stuff like that makes me very happy for Apple that they made the Intel decision.
I'm drooling over the prospect of a 2+ghz dual G4 upgrade
That's a more than $500 upgrade... I guess it *might* make sense, as long as you don't want a faster FSB and graphics card as well...
and wouldn't you rather have an IBM G5 chip keychain, anyway?
Well, they don't make everything up. They report stories that "sources" give to them. Maybe now they ( and some of their readers ) will realize that Apple feeds them BS before big announcements.
They kept talking about iBooks and Mac minis, and I kept thinking "what low-end chips will they put in the mini? Boy, those Powerbooks haven't seen any real upgrade in ages, I thought the Intel switch was all about getting better portable options, and ... why would there be an iBook update before a PowerBook update?" It turns out I was right. Maybe I should start Mac rumor site :-)
Prediction: look for minis and iBooks soon after affordable Core Solo chips are shipping. You read it here first !
only in that they're items shown at MacWorld Expo, actually. That's it. It's pretty typical that most things shown at MacWorld also support other computers or operating systems.
Honestly, what on earth are you talking about ? Name one current piece of hardware that works on a Macintosh but does not work on a PC.
Maybe the Mighty Mouse should 'just work' as a USB mouse, it's even supported by Apple under XP. Maybe the ball might not work 'just right' without some other software support ( maybe? ) but I can't think of anything else that's an external device that wouldn't work at least to some degree with a PC... maybe some USB audio devices ? Couldn't you just write drivers for those? Aren't there PC equivalents? How does Apple being on Intel make writing a Windows driver for, say, a Griffin iMic any different than it is now? BTW, I checked, and actually, the iMic supports XP... what's the hardware you're talking about that will be affected by the Mac Intel switch, exactly? I've tried, including with the example of the Mighty Mouse you've given, but they're *all* PC devices, it seems.
Plenty of PC stuff still won't really work on a Macintosh, though, just because a Macintosh isn't going to have 'legacy' stuff like RS232 parallel ports or PS/2 inputs, but anything else was ( and is ) still going to be a matter of writing supporting software- which still puts the OS with less market share at a disadvantage, no matter how easy developing for OS X is. The Intel switch doesn't change that, and for most gadget-makers it doesn't change anything, except the perception of folks like you.
All of this stuff is Mac-specific only in that it was being shown at MacWorld Expo. A ton of MacWorld Expo stuff is also PC-compatible... but that's nothing new. As for PC makers ( and others ) cribing Apple hardware design, that's nothing new, either, and I don't see how it could really get more prevalent than it already is.
Isn't the common opinion that they'll have a small, removable hard drive as an ( undoubtably expensive ) option, i.e. not included in the base price?
I always assumed that was the whole reason behind the Xbox 360 Core, so that people would go to the store and see a 360 Core for $299 and a PS3 for $499(good luck even getting that low!) with identical hardware(minus blu-ray*) and make the simple decision to get the Core+3 games for the same price as the PS3 with no games.
I'm massively confused by that sentence. Do you mean the PS3 won't have Blu-ray? Or that the 360 won't have Blu-ray ? I'm going to have to assume that you mean the 360 won't have Blu-ray, since that's going to be the case... the PS3 most certainly will have Blu-ray.
With that clarification, I'm going to have to say I'm not sure the choice between a 360 Core + 3 games and a PS3 with no games is a "simple" decision, especially if you have an HD display and/or a library of PS2 games.
I mean, sure, you can get 3 games if you go the 360 route... but to really use the much-desired online features of the Xbox, you'll want the Premium system anyway. If you might want to watch HD movies sometime, you'll need to spend even more and have yet another component in your A/V rack.
I'm not really sure where people will go either way, but this is far from being an 'easy' choice, and you have to remember these are adults buying these things, for the most part, not kids. "It only plays games" is not a feature. Sony is going to try to position this so that anyone looking at XBox360 Premium+HD-DVD is going to see a price much higher than a PS3 bundle. Sony will also be able to point at ( probably pretty expensive ) high-end first-generation Blu-ray players which make the PS3 look like a *screaming* deal. If Sony can also manage to have a game lineup that rivals or beats the Xbox... that would be a bad thing for Microsoft.
That wasn't a "Linux sucks" for servers, so much as it was "we have more experience with and trust in the stability of Solaris" for servers.
But they use Linux for desktops, where the market is dominated by Windows - which sucks.
This looks like ( mostly ) a personal preference of the engineers- but they get these x86 laptops ( or desktops ) and need to communicate with Solaris servers, so what would you run? Like them, I'd run some sort of Linux... more for the apps than the OS, which some folks might perhaps find ironic or something.
If you look at the article, scan down to "Dripping Water or Playing Christina Aguilera Music". If that's not a human rights violation, I don't know what is...
Yea, I'm about as worried about Apple knowing my musical tastes as I am about Amazon knowing my reading preferences. As in... not at all.
If you're the type that's worried about Amazon and Google tracking you with cookies and such, then yea, it's nice to know about this ( and the fact that they don't track you when the mini-store is hidden ). I guess I'm just not that paranoid... I'm actually quite happy to tell everyone what kind of music I like. I'd even tell you, if I thought you wanted to know.
I'm frankly much more paranoid about Google keeping records of my searches and gmail messages, but even that... I mean, if you use credit cards, Apple knowing your music preferences is the least of your worries.
I guess I'd have to ask details like "what sort of trouble did you have editing video", but the point I was making is that I *frequently* edit video on an 800Mhz G4 iMac without issues. Also, the point of an interface like Firewire is that the CPU is completely uninvolved in the I/O transfer; your CPU should technically have no impact on your Firewire performance.
I doubt that they simply abandoned FireWire 800 customers without some thought.
I'm sure they didn't, too... I think they noticed that everyone is using USB 2.0 hard drives, and that Firewire400 is *faster* than even an HD data stream requires. I think they thought about it very, very carefully, and decided that the extremely small number of Powerbook users who absolutely require Firewire800 performance would be savy enough to get an ExpressCard Firewire800 adapter.
I hope they create a 17" Intel PowerBook
I'm sure it's just a matter of time... but it'll probably be at least 8-12 months, so you'll have at least a little bit of time to enjoy that 17" laptop before getting *too* grumpy.
Well, at least they aren't constantly coming out with new shuffle models that make yours "obsolete", huh?!?
Besides, it's not so much the red-headed step-child as it is the "starter model"... what do you want them to do to the shuffle, anyway? For what it is and does, it's perfect... but they can't really throw more memory at it, you put too many songs on a stick and it really starts to need a screen. Short of doing things they shouldn't ( like releasing a Firewire model that works with my no-USB-2.0-G4-iMac ), I can't think of a single thing they could do to the shuffle to improve it, can you ? Maybe they could add a radio, but... meh. Radio sucks, that's the point of MP3 players in a way...
Until the Mac OS X 10.3.4 version of OS X that shipped with their Intel Developer Kit, you would be right about that.
To be clear, nobody at Apple is terribly worried about someone taking a copy of OS X and putting it on another Apple computer. They never really have been. What they're concerned with is someone taking a copy of OS X and putting it on a Dell.
I imagine their negotiations with Intel are a big reason that Yonah isn't being called Pentium-Y etc.
Actually, the Yonah is called Core Duo T2300, T2400, T2500 and T2600. Core Solo chips will also be available, later, and will be Core Solo with a (1) after the number- not exactly "G5"-style marketing names, really. Your speculation is interesting but conflicts with what I've seen elsewhere- the Intel shift is more related to well-publicized problems they've had getting the Pentium line to scale well ( er, Itanium ) and their shift to non-clock-speed numbers to rate performance.
If they *are* making significant product design decisions based on the fear of OS X getting onto some Dell somewhere, then they're fools.
I wouldn't argue with that... but it does appear that's what they're doing. I'm guessing they're still remembering how Mac clone makers nearly ate their lunch. Otherwise, why *not* replace the Mac mini and and iBook with cheaper, low-end Intel chipsets? Mom wouldn't bother to pirate OS X and stick it on a $600 Dell, but she *would* like to buy a $600 Mac mini. She can't afford the $1300 iMac, though, and already has a monitor... you're saying Apple is ignoring her just because she doesn't want to spend more? It's easy enough to slap together a Pentium-M mini-PC you'd think they'd do it... unless there's something that's not supported by the older chipset which is really important to Apple. Like, keeping someone from buying a computer that's $300 or so cheaper than a Mac and installing OS X on it, mostly... just my guess, but I think that's it... I'm just not easily convinced that selling Apple-branded Pentium-M ( or cheaper ) systems cheap in the "mini, iBook and eMac" segment is something that Apple wouldn't like to do... they'd love to entice switchers to try out OS X on those 'starter' boxes, *except* that doing so would mean released a non-DRM'd OS X. You say they don't care if we steal OS X to run it on non-Apple hardware, but the DRM in the developer OS on the developer Intel boxes suggests otherwise.
Apple has fought hard to regain some educational market and low-end footing. It's not that they don't want it... it's that they have to focus on more profitable segments first, and they don't have a chip to put in those low-end machines right now, because the Pentium-M supports chipsets they don't want to run on. My guess as to why they don't want to run on them could be wrong, but like I've said many times... Apple has shown an inclination to put Trusted Computing-based DRM in their Intel OS.
Good point, I hadn't really thought of that. I suppose that's only going to be a *real* problem for people doing HD video, though, huh? I mean, I don't know what the cause of your problems were, but I've *never* had problems importing DV via FW800, even on a ( really ) 800Mhz G4 iMac... maybe there was a controller issue you were having?
In any event, the "MacBook Pro" is undoubtedly much more ready to edit video on-the-go than current PowerBooks, and FW400 is fine for importing DV-quality video, and USB2.0 is there as well, so... I'm guessing the only issues that might *really* arise fo rthe on-the-go video editor is if they're doing HD or want faster access to disc drives than FW400 or USB2.0 offer. Sadly, I see a lot of things going to USB2.0...
Of course, I suppose you could always use that ExpressCard slot to host a Firewire 800 card, though, couldn't you? Since it's such a specialized need, I guess Apple could be forgiven for providing the ports more commonly needed...
For that matter, the new iMacs are likely to outrun all current PowerMacs but the dual dual core. That's bound to be a bit of a marketing problem.
Only if selling iMacs instead of PowerMacs is a problem, really, I guess :-). They'll get their PowerMacs updated by the end of the year, probably in less than 6 months or so... I'm guessing it's not really going to be a problem. Forget PowerMac sales, though... who is going to buy a Mac mini now??
I frankly think this is the most likely explaination ( though details as to why use Core Solo and not some existing Celeron are left as an exercise for the reader ), but will they be cheap enough to fit into the existing price structure?
Then what's the rationale for not producing a Pentium-M or Celeron-based Mac mini ?
They're sticking to the new chips so they can use the new DRM-laden chipsets... either that's to protect the software, or to protect future content DRM... I think it's to protect the software, but I guess I could be wrong. In any event, I think they'd love to be able to sell a cheap-ass Clereon or Pentium-M -based Mac mini, but can't because they want Intel's new chipset... thus no currently available low-end Mac Intel. Maybe when single-core Yonahs are released, if they're cheap enough, or when Memron chips replace the high end... but I think it's the thought of OS X running on someone's home-built ( or Dell ) machine that has Apple stuck on Intel's newer chipset.
Pro video people use PowerMacs. If I'm not wrong, can't FW800 devices drop down to 400 speeds? So those FW800 devices ( if you find one ) would still transfer data to your FW400 device... just slower...
I can't mod you troll, I don't have mod points.
However, if you think it's the chipset which made Apple the better computer system, I would prefer to mod you ( -1, Uninformed ) instead.
Unless you're doing some Altivec-optimized floating-point math, your G5 iMac has no chance in any native code application benchmark against a Duo Core iMac... and Apple laptop performance has been joke compared to Intel laptop performance for quite some time, unless you measure performance by battery life. It's sad, but it's true. And yet, I have prefered to work with Apple hardware, despite the fact that it's a little slower, just because OS X and OS X applications are so much easier to deal with than any of the alternatives... although the hardware design is nice, it's not the underlying chipsets and performance that makes me want to use Apple's systems, it's OS X and the programming tools.
If you don't get that the CPU is not the most important consideration when picking a computer system, then, well... have fun with Windows or whatever OS you're going to use when you finally have to replace your current Mac years and years from now . I'm still running my first-generation flat-panel lamp-style iMac at home, with no plans to replace it, personally... it's a great machine that does everything I need to do quite quickly enough.
Actually, plasma screens look great, but the memo that people didn't get is that they die after a relatively short time- like 5 years or so. Hopefully most of the people who bought them planned on replacing them in 5 years anyway, since they have enough cash to spend $5,000 anytime they see a new shiny object.
No, we saw it. There just wasn't enough in your original post to make anyone think that's what you were referencing. If you'd mentioned the iPod invisible, we would have gotten the joke. Without something more specific to the skit or a link to a transcript or something, your original post just looks stupid and incorrect, not funny.
It was a great joke, but if you want to reference a joke, uh... reference it. Say something about how the iPod iNvisa has already been discontinued or a link to an iPod-ready clip of the skit or something...
Meh. You bought the marketing you wanted to buy. The PowerPC chips were better at floating point operations, especially Altivec-optimised ones, and those were the benchmarks that Apple showed you and screamed about. Now they're on the other side of the fence, and so they have to talk about integer performance, because that's where the Intel chips are better.
This new Intel chip is neither 64-bit nor does it have floating point performance similar to a G5 at a similar clock speed. That hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that the PowerPC chips relatively suck at integer math.
the smug sense of superiority that I bought with the Mac has been wiped out.
Unless you were just smug about the superiority of the software, or the nice design ( not performance ) of the hardware, then is was a false sense of superiority anyway... unless you were specifically looking at optimized floating-point performance, of course.
What machines does Apple make the largest markup on ?
Profit is the only motive that makes sense to me. Consider that Apple knows it's going to be seeing a somewhat limited supply of chips and chipsets from Intel. With that as a given, where do they want to put those chips- in low-margin designs like the Mac mini and iBook, or in higher-margin designs like the desktop and pro laptop ?
Also, what chipset would Apple put in a lower-end machine ? I'm going to guess that due to Apple using Trusted Computing crap to keep you from building your own MacIntel and pirating OS X, they're not going to use any chipsets ( and thus chips ) that are pre-Yonah, so the low end of what they have right now is the slower 1.3-1.6Ghz Duo Core chip... too powerful and expensive for real low-margin machines, so... no low-end Mac Intels for now, and we won't see any until Intel introduces newer chips that can move in on the high end, maybe. Of course, I'm just speculating, but nothing else makes sense to me... I don't think there's a pure market-based reason for Apple to abandon the low end, I think it's just what they're able to do right now.
Too bad, too, I think that if Apple weren't so paranoid about OS X ending up on a Dell, they'd be able to make a seriously cheap Mac mini based on a Pentium M or something...