mrkramer
Apr 8, 01:11 AM
HA! Do I get another "I toldya so" moment soon??? :D
General: US may consider sending troops into Libya
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
We better not do that, the no-fly zone is ok, but we can't afford and we shouldn't put troops on the ground. If we do this will just turn into another Iraq.
General: US may consider sending troops into Libya
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
We better not do that, the no-fly zone is ok, but we can't afford and we shouldn't put troops on the ground. If we do this will just turn into another Iraq.
ranviper
Feb 18, 08:20 AM
New pics for the new thread. :eek:
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4420/openb.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3604/clamshell.jpg
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4420/openb.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3604/clamshell.jpg
w8ing4intelmacs
Jan 11, 08:36 PM
As the Mac community eagerly awaits for a MacBook Touch, it seems to me that a MacBook Air based on the MacBook would be a yawner.
maybe later in the year they will debut the MacBook Air Pro :) :D
maybe later in the year they will debut the MacBook Air Pro :) :D
Rocketman
Nov 15, 09:46 AM
From what I am reading so far, the real benefit of 8 cores in the real world of a minority of applications being truly well threaded, is the ability to run 2-4 large complicated programs simultaneously, multiple instances of programs (some have talked about running 4 copies of handbrake), and multiple OS's simultaneously.
All those things also require vast amounts of memory as well, so a MacPro or X-serve is the only way to go now to addres 16GB+.
Apple has always had memory crippled computers on the low end. If they could do ONE thing in the coming 64 bit world, I would ask them to make the motherboards at least be able to address FUTURE RAM options as the cost always drops rapidly and the requirements always seem to be predominantly ram based.
Rocketman
All those things also require vast amounts of memory as well, so a MacPro or X-serve is the only way to go now to addres 16GB+.
Apple has always had memory crippled computers on the low end. If they could do ONE thing in the coming 64 bit world, I would ask them to make the motherboards at least be able to address FUTURE RAM options as the cost always drops rapidly and the requirements always seem to be predominantly ram based.
Rocketman
KnightWRX
Apr 21, 12:10 PM
Reports are the file isn't sent to Apple, it doesn't leave the iPhone/iTunes backup. It exists to cache the location of nearby cell towers to provide a rough location in an area with no GPS or data connection. If it wasn't persistent, it would be pointless
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
But it doesn't need to be as persistent and as precise as it is for that to work. My history of last year is not relevent. The file should be flushed/cleaned out after a certain time. After a point, the data isn't useful to the phone.
It also shouldn't be backed-up. The device starts with a new DB when its new, no reason it shouldn't start over when you restore. That would alleviate some of the privacy concerns at least.
And if this same file isn't what is being sent to Apple, and you have information indicating this, then the summary of the article that makes it sound like it is should be fixed.
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
But it doesn't need to be as persistent and as precise as it is for that to work. My history of last year is not relevent. The file should be flushed/cleaned out after a certain time. After a point, the data isn't useful to the phone.
It also shouldn't be backed-up. The device starts with a new DB when its new, no reason it shouldn't start over when you restore. That would alleviate some of the privacy concerns at least.
And if this same file isn't what is being sent to Apple, and you have information indicating this, then the summary of the article that makes it sound like it is should be fixed.
Ping Guo
Jun 23, 11:09 AM
Lay the iMac on it's back, and it all becomes clear. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen.
Why would I lay an iMac on its back? There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen, are you sure? I can think of many things that are a lot more frustrating. Perhaps you're obsessive-compulsive?:p
Why would I lay an iMac on its back? There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen, are you sure? I can think of many things that are a lot more frustrating. Perhaps you're obsessive-compulsive?:p
guzhogi
Jul 14, 11:01 AM
I went to my local MicroCenter a few days ago & saw BluRay movies (XXX, Underworld: Evolution, Hitch, and 1 or 2 more) so there ARE movies out for it. Each was worth $29.99 USD so they're gonna be expensive.
I'm just going to wait a while until either BluRay or HD-DVD win out. I'm sure this is going to be like the VHS vs. Betamax thing. I remember hearing that while BluRay can hold more data, movie studios would have to buy totally new equipment to burn them. HD-DVD, however, while having a lower capacity, the studios would only have to make minor adjustments. But don't quote me on that.
If I had the money (which I don't), I'd really like to get the top of the line Mac Pro w/ all the bells & whistles when Apple ships Leopard and build my own windows computer when (if?) Windows Xista ships. I saw a full tower case w/ 5 external 5.25" bays, 2 3.5" external & 5 internal bays. I'd like to get a DVD-burner, a BluRay burner, an HD-DVD burner and a CD-RW. Probably an Nvidia mobo, 2 ATI high-end workstation graphics card (if they work w/ nvidia's sli), a Soundblaster X-Fi w/ the 3.5" bay thing, a memory card reader for the other external 3.5" bay. Then a Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM 150GB drive and 4 Seagate 750 GB drives and as many of Apple's 30" displays it can handle (or whatever the biggest, fastest stuff is out then). :D
I'm just going to wait a while until either BluRay or HD-DVD win out. I'm sure this is going to be like the VHS vs. Betamax thing. I remember hearing that while BluRay can hold more data, movie studios would have to buy totally new equipment to burn them. HD-DVD, however, while having a lower capacity, the studios would only have to make minor adjustments. But don't quote me on that.
If I had the money (which I don't), I'd really like to get the top of the line Mac Pro w/ all the bells & whistles when Apple ships Leopard and build my own windows computer when (if?) Windows Xista ships. I saw a full tower case w/ 5 external 5.25" bays, 2 3.5" external & 5 internal bays. I'd like to get a DVD-burner, a BluRay burner, an HD-DVD burner and a CD-RW. Probably an Nvidia mobo, 2 ATI high-end workstation graphics card (if they work w/ nvidia's sli), a Soundblaster X-Fi w/ the 3.5" bay thing, a memory card reader for the other external 3.5" bay. Then a Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM 150GB drive and 4 Seagate 750 GB drives and as many of Apple's 30" displays it can handle (or whatever the biggest, fastest stuff is out then). :D
Marx55
Sep 6, 11:09 AM
Whre is FireWire 800?
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
At least two FireWire ports, please.
And a true 7200 rpm fast drive.
Thanks.
bedifferent
May 3, 11:37 AM
I'm not so sure that is true. I was teaching an elderly person how to drag and drop a file into a folder and the whole drag and drop concept did not seem all that easy to her�.
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
Hellhammer
Jun 23, 04:11 AM
No thank you! Touch is useless in computer size of an iMac as after 10 mins your arma are full of pain and it's ridiculously slow too.
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 06:49 AM
Anyway, would you mind sharing why you want it so bad as I asked above?
I don't think it's really all that necessary until we have a much more prominent wireless infrastructure that isn't T-Mobile trying to charge you 7.99/hr to log on. Until then, it's nearly pointless unless you live in NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc.
I don't think it's really all that necessary until we have a much more prominent wireless infrastructure that isn't T-Mobile trying to charge you 7.99/hr to log on. Until then, it's nearly pointless unless you live in NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc.
ffakr
Nov 25, 05:32 PM
Dell is setting the pricing. It's not about the vendor costs.. it's all about what vendors think customers will pay.
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
I'm shopping for one to two compution nodes right now and the Dell Quad-Core 1U servers price at a bit cheaper at 1.86GHz [quad] vs. the dual-core system at 3.0GHz. Since 1.86GHz is very near the low end of the processor line, I'd suspect that we'll see the high end quad-cores sell for much more than the high-end Dual-cores. It won't matter what the part costs are [they are much closer]. There's too much extra value to end users who really need to run a lot of threads.
For most people, one Core2 Duo is plenty of horsepower for a long, long time. I'm typing on my new MacBookPro Core2 right now. One downside with the Core2Duo.. the thermal envelope IS higher than the Yonah CoreDuo processors. This thing gets pretty loud when the cpu [and the fans] spin up. It is wicked fast though [15" model with 2.33GHz]
This is one reason why I don't suspect we'll see a Core2Duo in a Mini any time soon. First off, the cpu is way too fast for a system with Integrated grpahics (unless you want a mini computation node). Unfortunately, Apple hasn't listened to me for the last few years so they haven't built in X-Grid support into all their consumer apps. If they had, your Mac MediaCenter could invisibly speed up the rendering of your iMovie project that you do on your iMac or Macbook. ;-) [as I always tell Apple, I hold no IP on potentially good ideas I provide publicly to Apple, go take them]
For most people, the towers are way too fast. I've set up a few dual-dual 2.66GHz machines and they are wicked fast. It really is difficult to slow them down even when you go out of your way to try (like Mathematica, HandBrake, a fork-bomb, and several other apps).
For me at home, the only reason I'd want a Tower would be for the X1900 video option. The Core2Duo iMac is more than powerful enough in every other way (even the occasional video work). I don't loose money when I'm waiting on a computational cycle though (like some of the people here)
At work, it's a different story. I'm looking for a very small computational cluster or One large computational node and 4 CPU cores may not be enough for multiple users.
Quad Dual-Core Opterons are too expensive so the Dual Quad-Core Intel systems would be perfect. The only problem is, at 1.66 and 1.83GHz, I'd likely be better off with 2 dual-core Core2Xeons running at 3.0GHz because they'd retire threads much faster and they run cooler (our chiller is over 20 years old so heat is a big issue). The Quad-Core Xeon chips run back up into the thermal range of the old P4 family chips. My whole excuse for new funding is to replace cluster of 22 single processor cluster nodes (ranging from 750MHz to 1GHz Athlons).
BTW.. it was some stupid ffakr who predicted in the last thread on this topic that we wouldn't see quad-core mac towers at this time. :-)
I still suspect we'll see Quad-Core chips in one or two high end Tower models only and that will happen at MWSF at the earliest. I also think that it is no coincidence that Apple hasn't replaced the old PPC XServe Cluster Node yet. :-) Considering the relatively low part cost if moving from dual to quad cores.. I suspect that Apple will return the XServe Cluster Node and it may be Dual quad-core only.
ffakr
hdsalinas
Sep 1, 12:38 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
I think that your predection is very realistic. I would think that if they do introduced this model they would at least drop $100 off the price of the current models
Now with those specs, the imac 23 should be called the "Imac Pro"
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
I think that your predection is very realistic. I would think that if they do introduced this model they would at least drop $100 off the price of the current models
Now with those specs, the imac 23 should be called the "Imac Pro"
nagromme
Jul 18, 02:06 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Umbongo
Mar 25, 04:13 PM
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
0815
May 2, 05:04 PM
Apple sees the benefit of unifying how things work across OS X and iOS.
There are tons of people that don't know how to install or uninstall apps on their PC, but they do on their iPhone or iPad. By unifying, those people feel comfortable buying a Mac.
But than it should be unified ... not three different ways depending how you got/installed the app. Right now it looks there are three ways of doing it in Lion:
- click & hold
- just trash
- run uninstaller
Unfortunately it is only ONE of those ways depending how you got it.
There are tons of people that don't know how to install or uninstall apps on their PC, but they do on their iPhone or iPad. By unifying, those people feel comfortable buying a Mac.
But than it should be unified ... not three different ways depending how you got/installed the app. Right now it looks there are three ways of doing it in Lion:
- click & hold
- just trash
- run uninstaller
Unfortunately it is only ONE of those ways depending how you got it.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:05 PM
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
In any of my comments I never said I new anything about them. I am speculating from pure observation. I am basing everything I know off of my friends experiences and what I've heard from them and what they saw to communities and towns during there speeches. No, I don't get your meaning either. So many ways to guess that meaning that I wouldn't be right if I guessed.
In any of my comments I never said I new anything about them. I am speculating from pure observation. I am basing everything I know off of my friends experiences and what I've heard from them and what they saw to communities and towns during there speeches. No, I don't get your meaning either. So many ways to guess that meaning that I wouldn't be right if I guessed.
imac_japan
Mar 21, 09:21 AM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 04:39 PM
I see people here still digging up the old WORD and WINDOWS argument that gets debunked every damn time someone brings it up.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
Apple Expert
May 2, 04:44 PM
They are making it sure look alot like the iOS. I hope they can put this OS on the iPad. :D
colinmack
Nov 30, 09:35 AM
...
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
...
Dead on, in my opinion.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
...
Dead on, in my opinion.
Doctor Q
Nov 29, 04:20 PM
the analyst also believes the iTV will have advanced user interface software to further the ultimate goal of improving user experience and simplifying consumers' use of content.Maybe during boring movie credits the iTV will switch the display to a Visualizer, like the one in iTunes, or automatically change all commercials into Get A Mac ads.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 12:38 AM
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
Uh, I said no such thing. Feel free to quote the sentence where I said that.
Back on post 127 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3185268&postcount=127) of this thread you said:
"Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive."
The point is it is going to stream, but not over the internet, it's going to stream from your Macs on your home network (Airport or otherwise), and TiVo doesn't download anything while you sleep, except an interactive TV guide.
Here's the homepage (http://www.slingmedia.com/indexa.php) of Slingbox's makers. A Slingbox is made to transmit a signal from a digital cable or satellite receiver over the internet, and allow a person to control the receiver. This would allow you to watch your service anywhere conceivably.
then you said:
"Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini."
Why would you assume I don't mean a Plasma or LCD? They are types of TV's as well. I don't have n HDTV but if I did I would probably get a tube-based HDTV because of the lower cost and better picture (less image ghosting, better color). Plus you stated Plasma and LCD TV's outsell tube-based, which I don't believe. Sounds like a line the TV salesmen gave you.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I don't rearrange anything. I separate your posts into separate thoughts. I did split ONE sentence on the last reply. Each portion of your replies appear in the same order they did in your original post. Yes, I have cut material out, but the purpose of quoting a previous post isn't to repeat it in it's entirety.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Except Apple doesn't offer movies in HD. HD is still a niche itself until there is wider adoption of HD sets. It's a chicken and the egg problem. There's no rush to buy an HD set untill there is lots of exclusive programming for HDTV owners. But there will be little if any programming available in HD that is not available in SD as well untill more people buy HD sets, because advertisers want their message getting in front of as many eyes as possible. There's a reason cablecos only offer a dozen or so stations of HD out of the 250+ channels they offer.
The price of HD-DVD and BluRay players both will fall soon. Just as the price of HDTV's is going to fall through the floor in the U.S. after analog broadcasting gets pulled in 2009. Digital TV (and by extension, HD) will no longer be a luxury service for the wealthy.
You could also buy a PS3, a BluRay player for as low as $600. :D
mjteix
Mar 25, 07:02 PM
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Then why "2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there."?
If the power consumption is less than the TDP, it should be: 2x CPUs 95W rated. So that's 190W max, anyway.
If you want an example of power consumption from a similar computer, go here (http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13277_na/13277_na.HTML). The maximum power consumption is 570W for 2x Xeon X5570 (TDP=2x95W), 12GB RAM, FX4800 gpu (TDP=150W), 2x 1TB HDD, ODD, Ethernet, on a 650W 80PLUS� BRONZE PSU.
If you change the gpu for one with a 300W TDP, and if the power consumption is still less than the TDP, then a 800W PSU would do the trick. No?
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Then why "2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there."?
If the power consumption is less than the TDP, it should be: 2x CPUs 95W rated. So that's 190W max, anyway.
If you want an example of power consumption from a similar computer, go here (http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13277_na/13277_na.HTML). The maximum power consumption is 570W for 2x Xeon X5570 (TDP=2x95W), 12GB RAM, FX4800 gpu (TDP=150W), 2x 1TB HDD, ODD, Ethernet, on a 650W 80PLUS� BRONZE PSU.
If you change the gpu for one with a 300W TDP, and if the power consumption is still less than the TDP, then a 800W PSU would do the trick. No?
