oneighturbo
Sep 14, 01:15 PM
If the new one is announced before your order ships, it will be automatically upgraded. Otherwise, you should return the unopened product within 2 weeks of purchase for a free upgrade.
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:49 AM
Edited above. Re :gps
Thanks for actually updating it and replying to me. That's refreshing.
Thanks for actually updating it and replying to me. That's refreshing.
prady16
Sep 26, 08:05 AM
Any idea what kind of "top-secret" features Leopard could support for iPhone?
Let your imaginiations run wild!
Let your imaginiations run wild!
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
Stella
Mar 30, 12:18 PM
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term.
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
For example "Killer App", or more recently, "Web App" ( Java )
peharri
Oct 12, 02:57 PM
Weird. Could have sworn I responded to this.
Anyway, this strikes me as unbelievably cynical. I doubt Apple's advertising is usually below 10% of the revenue of the iPods, yet they're giving $10 (5%) of revenues to a charity in exchange for a feel-good factor and marketing from Bono.
I'm all for AIDS prevention, but there's not a single aspect of this story that doesn't strike me as crass and exploitative.
Anyway, this strikes me as unbelievably cynical. I doubt Apple's advertising is usually below 10% of the revenue of the iPods, yet they're giving $10 (5%) of revenues to a charity in exchange for a feel-good factor and marketing from Bono.
I'm all for AIDS prevention, but there's not a single aspect of this story that doesn't strike me as crass and exploitative.
Peace
Sep 1, 09:02 AM
I'm starting to question the validity of any keynote.There's only one story about it and it's not even on the radio shows webpage.Why are there not more media types getting "invitations" ?
teme
Sep 13, 04:37 AM
Fullscreen touchscreen video iPod is going to be the biggest change to iPod since the 1st generation iPod was released, so I'm not surprised that it is taking so long. All the previous generations have just included some smaller updates (click-wheel, color screen, smaller size, new features etc).
I'll probably buy the 80GB version before Christmas. I have waited for a large capacity for a long time, and the new model seems to be great (although it's not that fullscreen 6G iPod). It has a good battery life, large capacity, nice new features... enough "new" to replace my old 30GB iPod, bought in 2003.
I'll probably buy the 80GB version before Christmas. I have waited for a large capacity for a long time, and the new model seems to be great (although it's not that fullscreen 6G iPod). It has a good battery life, large capacity, nice new features... enough "new" to replace my old 30GB iPod, bought in 2003.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 02:24 AM
Well I will openly admit that I have a low opinion of those who get burned in investment scams. If you're stupid enough to think you're going to get the kind of returns promised to you by the likes of Madoff, then you deserve to lose your money. But that's off topic.
-Don
Why are you so cold hearted?
Why do you feel you are somehow better than everyone else?
Why do you not feel you need to abide by society's laws and furthermore, why do you not have any sense of ethics or morals?
I am especially shocked that you have these views after stating you have volunteered 2500 hrs (or over 100 continuous days) in the last 2 years...I would think that this experience would have you develop a sense of compassion, not make you more cold hearted...
-Don
Why are you so cold hearted?
Why do you feel you are somehow better than everyone else?
Why do you not feel you need to abide by society's laws and furthermore, why do you not have any sense of ethics or morals?
I am especially shocked that you have these views after stating you have volunteered 2500 hrs (or over 100 continuous days) in the last 2 years...I would think that this experience would have you develop a sense of compassion, not make you more cold hearted...
jafd
Apr 25, 02:48 PM
(see back lit keyboard in current MBA)
And replace backlight with Braille print? Cool, it would save some battery juice at night. By the way, I don't look at the keyboard when typing. Are you?
And replace backlight with Braille print? Cool, it would save some battery juice at night. By the way, I don't look at the keyboard when typing. Are you?
donlphi
Sep 16, 12:58 PM
I have to disagree on the price point.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
If you can connect a small but full sized bluetooth keyboard to it, I wouldn't mind haviing something that is ultra portable. It could even act like a phone, but I would like to see a smaller macbook available.
I know your dealing with screen real estate issues, but I wouldn't be using it to create movies for disney pixar.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
If you can connect a small but full sized bluetooth keyboard to it, I wouldn't mind haviing something that is ultra portable. It could even act like a phone, but I would like to see a smaller macbook available.
I know your dealing with screen real estate issues, but I wouldn't be using it to create movies for disney pixar.
devman
Sep 26, 10:22 PM
I ended up doing the reverse. I bought a SLVR in China and brought it back to the USA. It's so nice not to have to be on any ****ing "contract". (Sorry, I just really hate the state of the cellphone market in the USA.)
I just want WiFi VoIP phones to come along and wipe out the whole market...I think that will have to wait for WiMax rollouts nationwide, though.
I'm not on a contract. I use their pay-as-you-go offering.
I just want WiFi VoIP phones to come along and wipe out the whole market...I think that will have to wait for WiMax rollouts nationwide, though.
I'm not on a contract. I use their pay-as-you-go offering.
Tampa Tom
Mar 30, 01:38 PM
How cunning. Hire a linguist.
bommai
Aug 23, 05:47 PM
This is not the first time Apple has licensed someone else's technology. When the online Apple Store opened, they were the first to license Amazon's One-Click technology. May be Apple just wanted this headache over. May be Apple also figured if they settle now, may be Creative could use this precedence to sue Microsoft and other competitors over their UI and make them pay for licenses too.
woodman
Sep 14, 01:23 AM
Instead of having a slide-down clickwheel that reveals buttons, why not just have the clickwheel behave like those old roatary phones. You can just scroll around a circle of numbers on the screen and click to select it. That'd be cleaner. Of course text messages are a different thing :)
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
Al Coholic
Apr 25, 06:55 PM
Well crap.
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
I suppose this new design will be shaped like an onion dicer a.k.a. "Air" style. I hate the "wedgie" look. If so, looks like the OD will go as well.
Double crap.
But I don't like change in general. (They changed the label on my bourbon bottle 10 years ago and it hasn't tasted the same since :()
erikistired
Sep 19, 04:45 PM
nevermind, it's been explained already.
KingCrimson
Apr 22, 04:22 PM
Right becuase the iPhone is a full laptop running OSX :rolleyes:
Ask yourself why you would want a full OS-X device in that form factor. It's hardly genius, and that's why :apple: won't ever do it.
Ask yourself why you would want a full OS-X device in that form factor. It's hardly genius, and that's why :apple: won't ever do it.
Stridder44
Aug 23, 09:15 PM
thats:
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
Exactly! Not to mention computer sales that will also contribute to this. And now Apple has another company to add to it's list that'll be helping those iPods sales by making iPod accessories.
Because of Apple's actions, Creative can now legitimately force other MP3 player makers to pay too. I think this is what Apple wants.
Interesting...that's a good point.
334,448 iPods or
671,141 Nanos or
1,449,275 Shuffles.
Exactly! Not to mention computer sales that will also contribute to this. And now Apple has another company to add to it's list that'll be helping those iPods sales by making iPod accessories.
Because of Apple's actions, Creative can now legitimately force other MP3 player makers to pay too. I think this is what Apple wants.
Interesting...that's a good point.
davelanger
Mar 30, 01:39 PM
Yes, you know what an "app store" means if you know what an "app" means.
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Apple didnt TM application or app they TM appstore.
I dont see why people are trying to argue the wrong point.
MS can call it something, I and others have given different names they could use. MS has the marketplace, hell that is a generic name as well. Should apple sue them for that?
Does an "app" mean an Apple program?
It's doesn't matter what MS calls it. There's a class of programs everywhere called "applications". There's no other name for it.
Applications are a strict subset of programs.
Apple didnt TM application or app they TM appstore.
I dont see why people are trying to argue the wrong point.
MS can call it something, I and others have given different names they could use. MS has the marketplace, hell that is a generic name as well. Should apple sue them for that?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:36 PM
"Shooting To Wound" is purely a product of television, movies, and video games. In real situations where gunfire is exchanged, milliseconds count, and center mass until the target is down is the ONLY reality.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
cadillaccactus
Aug 31, 02:58 PM
I wonder if it will still be called the iTunes Music Store?
I have oft wondered the same thing. is iTunes really the best name for the store anymore?
anyone have ideas?
I have oft wondered the same thing. is iTunes really the best name for the store anymore?
anyone have ideas?
davelanger
Mar 30, 01:03 PM
Why werent all these companies using apple when they first started using the turn app store (before it was making money)? We all know if app store was not making money for Apple, MS would not want to use it.
How long has the appstore been around? A few years now?
How long has the appstore been around? A few years now?
Lesser Evets
May 3, 12:30 PM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:
We were discussing this a few threads down the front page.
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.
We were discussing this a few threads down the front page.
Doubt the MacPro will be dead, but the market for it will shrivel up very badly unless some universal need for extreme processing is manufactured. With current processing speeds and ThunderBolt accessories, an iMac can become a full pro machine for all sorts of jobs that don't need to work titanic piles of data.
This Pro I purchased in early 2007 is still excellent. It will last until 2014 or beyond, and by that point I will probably go with an iMac. Today's iMacs are already faster than this tower in most ways.