brewno
May 7, 04:14 PM
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
ChickenSwartz
Sep 16, 11:35 AM
Thats some optimistic reading mister. Not VERY reliable, just reliable. And the report is not connected to the newest rumor, it's something they heard about earlier this year and they're unable to confirm that it applies to the 25th. Oh well, maybe you read another article than me?
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
cactus33
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Although I'd absolutely love this, I highly doubt it'll be here for a while.
I think the first step would be increasing displays to like 1800x1080 on the 13", and 1900x1200 on the 15" and 2400x1440 on the 17" - while keeping the same user interface size. That would be awesome.
Then in the next 5-10 years, I'd expect full retina.
I doubt it would be a full jump from 1440x900 --> 3200x2000 on a 15" or something like that.
I think the first step would be increasing displays to like 1800x1080 on the 13", and 1900x1200 on the 15" and 2400x1440 on the 17" - while keeping the same user interface size. That would be awesome.
Then in the next 5-10 years, I'd expect full retina.
I doubt it would be a full jump from 1440x900 --> 3200x2000 on a 15" or something like that.
brewcitywi
Apr 20, 08:03 AM
Antennagate probably pushed back the product cycle by a few months, or iPhone 5 would have been fine with a June/July release.
doctor-don
Apr 26, 03:00 PM
Where do these survey companies get there data from? I have NEVER been asked any questions about stuff like this. Plus with statistics you can fudge the numbers to represent just about anything.
Interesting. I say the same thing when the news stations announce popularity polls of the President, healthcare reform, etc.
Interesting. I say the same thing when the news stations announce popularity polls of the President, healthcare reform, etc.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
dagomike
Nov 17, 10:42 AM
here's a video on the kit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nf-l6_fLXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nf-l6_fLXk
islanders
Jul 23, 10:33 PM
We may see a drop in the MB at the end of a production run.
$1099 is very reasonable, esp if it is a quality product�
at that price consumers are going to evaluate features, longevity�
although I think it is a valid point to consider pricing for consumer end.
$1099 is very reasonable, esp if it is a quality product�
at that price consumers are going to evaluate features, longevity�
although I think it is a valid point to consider pricing for consumer end.
baryon
Apr 23, 04:52 PM
Wow... Imagine an 11 inch MacBook Air with the resolution of a much bigger monitor... Or imagine a MacBook Pro that can display all of Photoshop's annoying panels without having to collapse them all the time... Or simply viewing photos with loads more detail! Good stuff!
*LTD*
Apr 5, 07:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
greatm31
Aug 3, 12:56 PM
Has Apple EVER released any consumer products at WWDC? It sounds like some people are going to be in for a real dissapointment when no iphone comes out. I thought they were trying to transition from releases at big conferences anyway.
MattInOz
May 6, 07:46 AM
Can always have a system with ARM AND x86 CPUs.
And intel could make both of them for Apple.
Replace the chipset with an A6 that can run standalone in low demand workflows and seamless switch on CPU or and gpu as demand picks up.
And intel could make both of them for Apple.
Replace the chipset with an A6 that can run standalone in low demand workflows and seamless switch on CPU or and gpu as demand picks up.
MacRumors
Jul 29, 08:33 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Contrary to recent reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml), Engadget says that Apple's rumored "iPhone" may appear as early as August (http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/29/wild-speculation-iphone-to-launch-in-august/).
A reader is reporting to us that a coworker's tech-unsavvy friend, who is regularly hired by Apple to do marketing photo shoots, was recently brought on to take some shots of "the sleekest, sexiest damn phone he's ever seen."
It has been well-established that Apple has been working on an Apple-branded phone for some time, however the release date has been difficult to pinpoint. Recently, various patents (1 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060505202447.shtml), 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060614074411.shtml)) have been uncovered regarding Apple's cell phone technology and Peter Oppenheimer made comments (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/07/20/merrill.upgrades.aapl/) during Apple's Q3 2006 conference call virtually acknowledging Apple's work on the product, stating "We're not sitting around doing nothing" with regard to cell phones.
Contrary to recent reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060330174059.shtml), Engadget says that Apple's rumored "iPhone" may appear as early as August (http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/29/wild-speculation-iphone-to-launch-in-august/).
A reader is reporting to us that a coworker's tech-unsavvy friend, who is regularly hired by Apple to do marketing photo shoots, was recently brought on to take some shots of "the sleekest, sexiest damn phone he's ever seen."
It has been well-established that Apple has been working on an Apple-branded phone for some time, however the release date has been difficult to pinpoint. Recently, various patents (1 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060505202447.shtml), 2 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060614074411.shtml)) have been uncovered regarding Apple's cell phone technology and Peter Oppenheimer made comments (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/07/20/merrill.upgrades.aapl/) during Apple's Q3 2006 conference call virtually acknowledging Apple's work on the product, stating "We're not sitting around doing nothing" with regard to cell phones.
roland.g
May 4, 03:54 PM
On yesterday's MacBreak Weekly they were talking about this. The consensus was that the d/l version will be ultra cheap similar to SL b/c Apple wants people to migrate quickly. And then there will be a retail box that will sell for more for those who either can't or don't want to d/l. There is a patter of this in iLife, iWork, Aperture, etc., where the d/l version is much less expensive than the retail box.
And I'm fine with that. Bought Aperture when the Mac App Store debuted because of the new price. However, while people will say "partition your drive for OS and Apps and another partition for data so that you can wipe the OS partition for installs, etc." - because I like to do a clean install of the OS when I get it, and typically with a new machine I still reinstall it without all the languages, print drivers, fonts I won't ever need, I don't want to get a new iMac now and then in a couple months install Lion clean after just setting up the new machine. I'll wait. Get the new iMac with Lion. Wipe the OS and reinstall it slimmed down. Then add my Apps and data.
And I'm fine with that. Bought Aperture when the Mac App Store debuted because of the new price. However, while people will say "partition your drive for OS and Apps and another partition for data so that you can wipe the OS partition for installs, etc." - because I like to do a clean install of the OS when I get it, and typically with a new machine I still reinstall it without all the languages, print drivers, fonts I won't ever need, I don't want to get a new iMac now and then in a couple months install Lion clean after just setting up the new machine. I'll wait. Get the new iMac with Lion. Wipe the OS and reinstall it slimmed down. Then add my Apps and data.
*LTD*
May 4, 08:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Would be my preferred way. Enough with physical media. Very progressive of Apple.
Would be my preferred way. Enough with physical media. Very progressive of Apple.
lilcosco08
Apr 26, 02:10 PM
I lol'd at symbian in the last chart
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.
rmwebs
Apr 20, 03:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
No, they aren't. Don't post complete garbage. They have no need to release an iPad again this year. How many times have you ever see Apple do a product refresh in the same year? Every single major Apple product runs on a yearly refresh, with a couple of months either side to handle any possible delays.
iPod Classic:
9/2009
9/2008
9/2007
9/2006
10/2005
iPod Touch:
9/2010
9/2009
9/2008
iPod Nano:
9/2010
9/2009
9/2008
9/2007
9/2006
Mac Mini:
6/2010
10/2009 ~ Notable exception due to the 2 year update gap.
3/2009
8/2007
iPad:
3/2011
3/2010
iPhone:
6/2010
6/2009
7/2008 ~ Not a refresh, added a 16GB option to existing line.
2/2008
9/2007
Do you get it now? No iPad refresh until 2012...end of story.
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
No, they aren't. Don't post complete garbage. They have no need to release an iPad again this year. How many times have you ever see Apple do a product refresh in the same year? Every single major Apple product runs on a yearly refresh, with a couple of months either side to handle any possible delays.
iPod Classic:
9/2009
9/2008
9/2007
9/2006
10/2005
iPod Touch:
9/2010
9/2009
9/2008
iPod Nano:
9/2010
9/2009
9/2008
9/2007
9/2006
Mac Mini:
6/2010
10/2009 ~ Notable exception due to the 2 year update gap.
3/2009
8/2007
iPad:
3/2011
3/2010
iPhone:
6/2010
6/2009
7/2008 ~ Not a refresh, added a 16GB option to existing line.
2/2008
9/2007
Do you get it now? No iPad refresh until 2012...end of story.
Truffy
Jan 12, 09:45 AM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
This is quite ignorant on a number of levels:
1. Trojans do exist for OSX, although unless you're logged in as admin (and who routinely operates their Mac like that? :rolleyes:) the request to install should alert you to something wrong.
2. Security through obscurity is no security at all, especially as OSX and iOS become more mainstream.
3. If you send files to friends, relations, or business colleagues with a less fortunate computing experience it would be playing nice not to pass on nasties to them.
Even Apple seems to think so, or is ClamXav no longer installed by default on OSX (server)?
guitarman777
May 8, 09:51 AM
That'd be nice, considering I just dropped $149 to renew my subscription... I certainly hope they credit me back if they do make it free.
Cbswe
Apr 5, 01:45 PM
I hope Apple gets Toyota to pull that crap back. Jailbreaking shouldn't be legitimate nor supported in any way.
George Knighton
Dec 15, 09:07 PM
I did notice that Time Machine really screws up the Sophos program. It will hang on the Time Machine Back up drive and just get stuck
Well. That's no good.
Well. That's no good.
mikeinternet
Nov 26, 02:34 PM
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/21286fujitsustylisticmodded.jpg
AppleDroid
Apr 21, 04:00 PM
Make it thinner, smaller, rounder whatever just make sure you squeeze 6/12 ram slots in there for the redesign thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment