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.)
Popeye206
Mar 28, 10:49 AM
No iPhone 5, but there will be iPhone invisio!
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
Well... it doesn't have Flash support, or 4G, or the fastest multi-core processor, or the largest screen!
Now of course, lack a Flash has not been a big deal for me, and just because 90% of the US does not have 4G yet doesn't matter. I know if I see someone with more specs than my iPhone I instantly start having technowhinnieitis attacks and feel inferior... even though my iPhone works great, is fast, has the best screen on the market and iOS is easy to use and work with... does not matter! I want more!!!! :rolleyes:
Oh.... I hope you can see the sarcasm! :p
The way I see it is they have a hot product line now... take their time, focus on the new OS's and give us something killer in the fall. I see no downside.
ROTF. Dated. That must be why the recent mobile industry event that Apple didn't sponsor nor attend voted iPhone the best phone on the market.
Well... it doesn't have Flash support, or 4G, or the fastest multi-core processor, or the largest screen!
Now of course, lack a Flash has not been a big deal for me, and just because 90% of the US does not have 4G yet doesn't matter. I know if I see someone with more specs than my iPhone I instantly start having technowhinnieitis attacks and feel inferior... even though my iPhone works great, is fast, has the best screen on the market and iOS is easy to use and work with... does not matter! I want more!!!! :rolleyes:
Oh.... I hope you can see the sarcasm! :p
The way I see it is they have a hot product line now... take their time, focus on the new OS's and give us something killer in the fall. I see no downside.
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.
JyveAFK
Apr 18, 03:48 PM
Image hotlinked from ; http://azsurplus.com/images/palm_zire_71_pda_4.JPG
but I see all this as obvious evolution from;
http://azsurplus.com/images/palm_zire_71_pda_4.JPG
Sure, it's capactive now, and higher rez, but it's still a bunch of scrollable icons on a phone to launch apps.
Wonder if the tablets they're going for are pre-honeycomb or post? It'd be hard to compare Honeycomb UI to anything Apple's currently doing, and any tablet prior to that, there's surely plenty of prior art android tablets? There were a whole bunch (admittedly lousy chinese cheap rubbish) tablets being demo'd at every tech conference for a year before Apple even admitted they had a tablet to sell.
The tablets have to be included I guess, but it's going to be hard work. The phones are the obvious vector they're going for, they do have UI patents, but when it comes down to it, and other phone manufacturers (or rather their lawyers) see how much money is involved, I can see it getting messy as everyone who had a phone with buttons on it (and there are many) will want to take a shot.
but I see all this as obvious evolution from;
http://azsurplus.com/images/palm_zire_71_pda_4.JPG
Sure, it's capactive now, and higher rez, but it's still a bunch of scrollable icons on a phone to launch apps.
Wonder if the tablets they're going for are pre-honeycomb or post? It'd be hard to compare Honeycomb UI to anything Apple's currently doing, and any tablet prior to that, there's surely plenty of prior art android tablets? There were a whole bunch (admittedly lousy chinese cheap rubbish) tablets being demo'd at every tech conference for a year before Apple even admitted they had a tablet to sell.
The tablets have to be included I guess, but it's going to be hard work. The phones are the obvious vector they're going for, they do have UI patents, but when it comes down to it, and other phone manufacturers (or rather their lawyers) see how much money is involved, I can see it getting messy as everyone who had a phone with buttons on it (and there are many) will want to take a shot.
srathi
Apr 26, 04:05 PM
Market share and product quality is not always 1:1 :rolleyes:relationship.
You mean iPhone quality is even worse than what its 25% market share suggests??
You mean iPhone quality is even worse than what its 25% market share suggests??
Llewellyn
Nov 28, 02:25 PM
Sure, a programmer or tech geek or business person or writer may have little use for a tablet, but artists are another story. Carrying around a separate, cumbersome USB tablet can become a pain. It's much easier to draw with a pen than it is with a mouse.
I once contacted a touch screen manufacturer concerning how a touch screen tablet compared to the wacom cintiq display tablet. I was told that touch screens are very basic in comparison and would not provide anywhere near the level of sensitivity of a art tablet or the Cintiq.
Last I looked the Wacom Cintiq was $2500+ by itself so I would expect you would at least have to add $1500 to the price of a top of the line laptop to have the kind of tablet you describe.
It would be very cool, just not practicle.
I once contacted a touch screen manufacturer concerning how a touch screen tablet compared to the wacom cintiq display tablet. I was told that touch screens are very basic in comparison and would not provide anywhere near the level of sensitivity of a art tablet or the Cintiq.
Last I looked the Wacom Cintiq was $2500+ by itself so I would expect you would at least have to add $1500 to the price of a top of the line laptop to have the kind of tablet you describe.
It would be very cool, just not practicle.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 11, 06:51 AM
Apple has over 150 stores in US(or is it 250?). So is it possible if someone wants to Buy or rent a movie he just goes to any of these stores(which will have Optic fibre connectivity with the online store) and download the desired movie on his iPod/Laptop/mini taking no more than 10 minutes. Now this might not sound that great but it should definitely up the sales of iFlicks by atleast 10-15% IMO. All these stores are located in prime locations in big cities. There is a huge number of footfalls in and around these stores. I dont live in US. But if I did and had such a store nearby I`d definitely be renting/buying atleast thrice as much movies than I`d otherwise even if I had a 10 Mbps connection.
It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible. But if possible it can be one of those nice little extras which can help Apple gain on Amazon.
It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible. But if possible it can be one of those nice little extras which can help Apple gain on Amazon.
CosmoPilot
May 6, 12:16 AM
How does this affect T-Bolt? How about the tri-gate technology released by Intel the other day. Sounds like Intel is making huge strides in their processors.
I hope this is just a rumor.
I hope this is just a rumor.
KnightWRX
May 6, 07:10 AM
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/21/google-buys-agnilux-eyeing-processors/
The article doesn't mention the processor architecture, but it is really supposed to be ARM.
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
The article doesn't mention the processor architecture, but it is really supposed to be ARM.
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 4, 01:18 PM
So I am planning on buying a MBP a soon or soon after they upgrade to Merom (depending on my $$ situation). BUt, I might be convinced to wait until Leopard is installed on the machines to buy.
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
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.
satkin2
Apr 20, 02:51 AM
What real difference would a larger screen make, it's half an inch at best, barely any difference.
I really can't see what could be gained from doing this, other than being in line with the competitions screen sizes. It would have an impact on the resolution and thus affect all apps.
Would increasing the screen size really enhance the product if it compromised the ecosystem upon which it is so tightly engrained in?
I really can't see what could be gained from doing this, other than being in line with the competitions screen sizes. It would have an impact on the resolution and thus affect all apps.
Would increasing the screen size really enhance the product if it compromised the ecosystem upon which it is so tightly engrained in?
heisetax
Aug 2, 02:14 PM
macbook pro? imac core duo? intel mini? macbook? :confused:
mac pro, xserve intel, leopard previews, maybe cinema displays, maybe something like a tablet that we haven't heard about.
no updates to imacs, macbooks, macbook pros, or minis. Those are minor speed bumps that will be done quietly over the coming weeks and months, not something to trumpet in a keynote.
But minor speed bumps is all they have to talk about. Some say that going from shipping a 2.16m2.0,1.83 GHz to shipping just a 2.16 & 2.0 GHz models is a speed bump. How can that be a speed bump when the max speed is still 2.16 GHz.
Other than a OS 10.5 demo I have no expectations for WWDC. I believe that Steve Jobs is too smart to bring out a new Intel PowerMac & have people see if he will promise that they will be up to the 3 GHz speed in a year. Or did he say 2 or 3 years or was that 2 or 3 processor changes before that happens.
With Photoshop, Quark, MS Office & other Mac productive software not yet able to run natively on an Intel Mac much of the excitement for the developer & Pro user is not there.
Apple has gone too long with waiting a year for updates that anything sooner than hat will take them awhile to do again.
The only thing I'd like to see is an easy to shange hard drive & optical drive in the Intel MacBook Pro 15" & 17" models. My PowerBook will last a long time, so I can wait. I may have to do all of my operations with an external drive. I always changed my hard drive for a newer drive once or twice a year. Sometimes I just wanted a different set of programs. My 15" TI PowerBook was easy to open & change hard drives. The new Intel MacBook seems to have a good answer for this problem. Let's see if Apple can do this in the Intel MacBook Pro line as well.
Bill the TaxMan
mac pro, xserve intel, leopard previews, maybe cinema displays, maybe something like a tablet that we haven't heard about.
no updates to imacs, macbooks, macbook pros, or minis. Those are minor speed bumps that will be done quietly over the coming weeks and months, not something to trumpet in a keynote.
But minor speed bumps is all they have to talk about. Some say that going from shipping a 2.16m2.0,1.83 GHz to shipping just a 2.16 & 2.0 GHz models is a speed bump. How can that be a speed bump when the max speed is still 2.16 GHz.
Other than a OS 10.5 demo I have no expectations for WWDC. I believe that Steve Jobs is too smart to bring out a new Intel PowerMac & have people see if he will promise that they will be up to the 3 GHz speed in a year. Or did he say 2 or 3 years or was that 2 or 3 processor changes before that happens.
With Photoshop, Quark, MS Office & other Mac productive software not yet able to run natively on an Intel Mac much of the excitement for the developer & Pro user is not there.
Apple has gone too long with waiting a year for updates that anything sooner than hat will take them awhile to do again.
The only thing I'd like to see is an easy to shange hard drive & optical drive in the Intel MacBook Pro 15" & 17" models. My PowerBook will last a long time, so I can wait. I may have to do all of my operations with an external drive. I always changed my hard drive for a newer drive once or twice a year. Sometimes I just wanted a different set of programs. My 15" TI PowerBook was easy to open & change hard drives. The new Intel MacBook seems to have a good answer for this problem. Let's see if Apple can do this in the Intel MacBook Pro line as well.
Bill the TaxMan
iScott428
Mar 29, 04:49 PM
Do you two have any hard data to suggest this is actually true in this case? Considering this company is planning to expand to the US and China, what evidence do you have suggest that its dangerous?
I am sure I could find some, but really you do not believe that battery production has some nasty byproducts? For instance it does more environmental damage to make Hybrid car batteries and get them into the vehicle than the car would ever save on energy usage through its life.
I am sure I could find some, but really you do not believe that battery production has some nasty byproducts? For instance it does more environmental damage to make Hybrid car batteries and get them into the vehicle than the car would ever save on energy usage through its life.
Tsurisuto
Apr 21, 02:32 PM
Yes, but where is my Sandy Bridge Mac mini?!
longofest
Aug 11, 08:57 AM
In other words, G5 PowerBooks next tuesday ;)
blow45
Mar 29, 03:57 PM
Right I get that, and thats the point. On the military note does any country spend/waste more money than us on our armed forces. Not even close.
The arms dealers run the US, pretty much, if one is a cynic here. And it's not only the money spent on them, it's the havoc they wreak worldwide. Ask the Libyans, the Iraqis, the Afganis, the Serbs, the Vietnamese, the Cubans etc. etc. It's the price to pay for being a world bully. I am not making a value judgement here, I am just calling it like it is, but I am myself OOT here, so I won't say anymore respecting the topic at hand and the forums.
The arms dealers run the US, pretty much, if one is a cynic here. And it's not only the money spent on them, it's the havoc they wreak worldwide. Ask the Libyans, the Iraqis, the Afganis, the Serbs, the Vietnamese, the Cubans etc. etc. It's the price to pay for being a world bully. I am not making a value judgement here, I am just calling it like it is, but I am myself OOT here, so I won't say anymore respecting the topic at hand and the forums.
QCassidy352
May 8, 05:25 PM
The usefulness of MobileMe just doesn't justify the $99 pricetag -- especially when other services offer something similar for free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
Spoony
Apr 18, 04:56 PM
I remember first seeing the GalaxyS and it's such a blatant rip-off of Apple's design they have every right to sue on this..
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
I agree. I think the people posting on blogs like engadget or maybe even here are too young to appreciate the phones we had to use pre 2006/2007. It's as if their first phone was an iphone/android and oh of course why wouldn't a phone behave like this. It's so obvious.
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
Apple has every right to sue over this. I'm surprised it took them this long.
But now watch as the Apple haters try to weasel this as a 'generic' design..
Apple brings out the 'App Store'.. everyone copies them....It's generic
Apple brings out the iPhone... everyone copies them.. It's generic
Imitation is a form of flattery.. but when you're business depends on having the best designs, you need to protect your edge.
I agree. I think the people posting on blogs like engadget or maybe even here are too young to appreciate the phones we had to use pre 2006/2007. It's as if their first phone was an iphone/android and oh of course why wouldn't a phone behave like this. It's so obvious.
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
Apple has every right to sue over this. I'm surprised it took them this long.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 11:25 AM
...
bruinsrme
Apr 9, 05:10 PM
How do you figure 288.
The division automatically means anything to the right is The divisor.
So
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2 x 12
48 divided by 24
Answer 2
However if I was determining my salary 288 for sure
The division automatically means anything to the right is The divisor.
So
48 divided by 2(9+3)
48 divided by 2 x 12
48 divided by 24
Answer 2
However if I was determining my salary 288 for sure
iansilv
May 7, 10:14 AM
I get the feeling they are not really making any money on it, so it would make sense to give it away as a benefit of "using a mac."
crisss1205
May 7, 05:08 PM
I say that they make it free to Mac users and like $29 a year for Windows users.
MacinDoc
Aug 4, 12:03 AM
Why not? They did it with the iBooks for quite some time...
Yes, but the G3 was a more power efficient chip than the G4, while the opposite is true of the Core vs the Core2. Apple should put Core2 chips in the MacBooks ASAP, if only for the power saving. And Apple should also try to maximize the percentage of its user base that is 64 bit capable prior to the release of OS X 10.5, which should be 64 bit.
Don't forget that when they ship, the Core2 chips will cost as much as the Core chips do now. So, if Apple doesn't upgrade the MacBooks to Core2 or drop their prices, it will start to look like it is less competitive in pricing again.
Yes, but the G3 was a more power efficient chip than the G4, while the opposite is true of the Core vs the Core2. Apple should put Core2 chips in the MacBooks ASAP, if only for the power saving. And Apple should also try to maximize the percentage of its user base that is 64 bit capable prior to the release of OS X 10.5, which should be 64 bit.
Don't forget that when they ship, the Core2 chips will cost as much as the Core chips do now. So, if Apple doesn't upgrade the MacBooks to Core2 or drop their prices, it will start to look like it is less competitive in pricing again.
No comments:
Post a Comment