A.Fairhead
Sep 14, 08:21 AM
Whether the iPhone, if/on release, is in two models (similar to the nano/video relationship) or not, here's a mockup I've just created, depicting what I would expect of the device at the moment.
I don't usually do mock-ups (this is in fact my first one) but with all the numpad/touchscreen/slide-down ideas in the works, I wanted to show a solution which is based very much on what we have right now. It would make sense that the devices would sit snugly in line with Apple's other mobile products.
http://www.adamfairhead.co.uk/iphone.jpg
I don't usually do mock-ups (this is in fact my first one) but with all the numpad/touchscreen/slide-down ideas in the works, I wanted to show a solution which is based very much on what we have right now. It would make sense that the devices would sit snugly in line with Apple's other mobile products.
http://www.adamfairhead.co.uk/iphone.jpg
MacSamurai
Sep 5, 01:27 PM
OH PLEEASE let it be the phone...i need a new one now!!!
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
mmcc
Apr 22, 09:01 AM
go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
Ok, I will complain. ;) I stopped using Pandora on my iPhone when AT&T began offering incentives to decrease 3G bandwidth usage (i.e. lower monthly bills).
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
Ok, I will complain. ;) I stopped using Pandora on my iPhone when AT&T began offering incentives to decrease 3G bandwidth usage (i.e. lower monthly bills).
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
Eidorian
Sep 9, 11:37 AM
No, I mean the lowest repair/return rate of the whole industry, and the highest praise in terms of support and reliability of the whole market...care to take a look around, perhaps?
We all know how public problems with Apple may get...1 PowerBook down is worth 1000 DOA Dells that never make it to the news...or perhaps you think the existence of iFixIt means all Macs are cracked...right? :rolleyes:Fixed!
I have to repair an iBook G3 this week. :rolleyes:
We all know how public problems with Apple may get...1 PowerBook down is worth 1000 DOA Dells that never make it to the news...or perhaps you think the existence of iFixIt means all Macs are cracked...right? :rolleyes:Fixed!
I have to repair an iBook G3 this week. :rolleyes:
joshwest
Oct 12, 08:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
love the chicago store been there a few times
love the chicago store been there a few times
jessica.
Apr 25, 08:49 AM
Why do I feel like you are one of the people who purposely try to slow people down because you need to be on some higher moral ground and make sure the entire world does the speed you believe is safe?Higher moral ground? Read your posts ... pot meet kettle. :rolleyes:
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.I believe it is you who believes he holds some higher moral ground here. I believe that it is you who feels the need to punish someone. Everything you say about her and what she did to you is exactly what you're doing to her. Honking, flashing your lights, tailgating, and break checking her is punishing her for traveling at a safe speed. Just because you're a child in a car that is too much for you to handle and too expensive for a punk 16 year old doesn't make you a ****ing law. You're going 90, I am glad she didn't move and glad that it has you so worked up that you came here to cry about it.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-DonParenting, no license required ... clearly. I think I'll keep an eye on the news in your area so I can see just when and how you kill yourself or worse yet (and much worse yet) someone else because of your awesome driving skills.
I personally love how I get the bad rap, when the woman was the one going under the speed limit and attempted to breakcheck me first. She got what was coming to her. Had she just had some common courtesy and moved over, nothing would of happened. Instead she decided that she had to play traffic cop.
You people are all laughable.
-DonYou're 16 going 20 mph over the speed limit. You are not a COMPLETELY safe driver, not even a little. Your mother supposedly allowing you to do this is equally disgusting. The driver was likely not trying to enforce the speed limit. Just because you're speeding and people are getting out of your way, doesn't mean that her unwillingness to let you by is her way of enforcing anything. Newsflash, just because you're doing 90 in a 70 doesn't mean people HAVE to move. Most move because they fear for their own lives. I also call BS, I bet she wasn't doing 65. You're no more a safe driver than you are honest. Your first post you already concluded that you would have lied about some animal in the road. Doing 90, chances are you wouldn't even see the animal. You are laughable at best. It is not common courtsey to move out of the way of some guy honking, tailgating, and flashing his brights at you. You speak of courtsey and yet you have none.
When someone like you comes knocking on my ass you get to stay behind me while I chill on cruise control. Keep in mind, all those people who moved are witnesses. Should something have happened, at least one would be there. The so-called law and your so-called awesome family member who can supposedly get you out of all of this are powerless when it comes to you touching metal. Rear-ending someone may be 100% the fault of the person behind you until a witness comes forward and explains how the accident came to be. Animal or not, you're screwed.
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.I believe it is you who believes he holds some higher moral ground here. I believe that it is you who feels the need to punish someone. Everything you say about her and what she did to you is exactly what you're doing to her. Honking, flashing your lights, tailgating, and break checking her is punishing her for traveling at a safe speed. Just because you're a child in a car that is too much for you to handle and too expensive for a punk 16 year old doesn't make you a ****ing law. You're going 90, I am glad she didn't move and glad that it has you so worked up that you came here to cry about it.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-DonParenting, no license required ... clearly. I think I'll keep an eye on the news in your area so I can see just when and how you kill yourself or worse yet (and much worse yet) someone else because of your awesome driving skills.
I personally love how I get the bad rap, when the woman was the one going under the speed limit and attempted to breakcheck me first. She got what was coming to her. Had she just had some common courtesy and moved over, nothing would of happened. Instead she decided that she had to play traffic cop.
You people are all laughable.
-DonYou're 16 going 20 mph over the speed limit. You are not a COMPLETELY safe driver, not even a little. Your mother supposedly allowing you to do this is equally disgusting. The driver was likely not trying to enforce the speed limit. Just because you're speeding and people are getting out of your way, doesn't mean that her unwillingness to let you by is her way of enforcing anything. Newsflash, just because you're doing 90 in a 70 doesn't mean people HAVE to move. Most move because they fear for their own lives. I also call BS, I bet she wasn't doing 65. You're no more a safe driver than you are honest. Your first post you already concluded that you would have lied about some animal in the road. Doing 90, chances are you wouldn't even see the animal. You are laughable at best. It is not common courtsey to move out of the way of some guy honking, tailgating, and flashing his brights at you. You speak of courtsey and yet you have none.
When someone like you comes knocking on my ass you get to stay behind me while I chill on cruise control. Keep in mind, all those people who moved are witnesses. Should something have happened, at least one would be there. The so-called law and your so-called awesome family member who can supposedly get you out of all of this are powerless when it comes to you touching metal. Rear-ending someone may be 100% the fault of the person behind you until a witness comes forward and explains how the accident came to be. Animal or not, you're screwed.
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:15 PM
Absolutely perfect design? Not even close.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
ZipZap
Apr 22, 11:25 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
firsttube
Sep 13, 10:03 PM
Your first point is intriguing and has me thinking too, however your 2nd is not too far from being "Apple". Apple has used code names for years. It is a known fact and something that is well documented throughout the web at credible sites like folklore.org and the likes run by former Apple employees.
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement™" itself and not the codename
Yeah, I think they want people to download content starting today knowing that they'll be able to watch it on their nice big flat screen tv in the living room soon.
Steve jobs said "nice big flat screen tv" a lot during the itv intro, didn't he?
Unless you were actually commenting on the "pre-announcement™" itself and not the codename
Yeah, I think they want people to download content starting today knowing that they'll be able to watch it on their nice big flat screen tv in the living room soon.
Steve jobs said "nice big flat screen tv" a lot during the itv intro, didn't he?
Rhyalus
Apr 25, 05:18 PM
Did I misread something?
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 09:10 AM
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 10:58 AM
The overclocking features are even more impressive.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.
This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.
But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)
Dude you mac guy should really look into Xtremeforums if u want to see the full potential of Conroe , I saw Coolaler hit 5.2ghz on Phase when he broke the 1M Super Pi World Record by being the 1st to hit 9.2sec's , then He hit 4.0ghz on a Kentsfierld(yes people already have ES chips) CPU scoring over 2000 in 11sec Cinebench rendering.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.
This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.
But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)
Dude you mac guy should really look into Xtremeforums if u want to see the full potential of Conroe , I saw Coolaler hit 5.2ghz on Phase when he broke the 1M Super Pi World Record by being the 1st to hit 9.2sec's , then He hit 4.0ghz on a Kentsfierld(yes people already have ES chips) CPU scoring over 2000 in 11sec Cinebench rendering.
InuNacho
Apr 25, 12:55 PM
The only thing I can think of is the removal of the optical drive.
macintel4me
Sep 5, 08:27 PM
They could call it iMovie... wait that won't work.
iFlix (too netflix-ee)? iPix(too pixarish)? iMedia (too micro$oftish)? nah.. just stick with iTunes... everybody knows how to use it, but fix the video playback.
How about iWillBuyWhateverCoolAppleGadgetComesOutOnThe12th ??
iFlix (too netflix-ee)? iPix(too pixarish)? iMedia (too micro$oftish)? nah.. just stick with iTunes... everybody knows how to use it, but fix the video playback.
How about iWillBuyWhateverCoolAppleGadgetComesOutOnThe12th ??
ksz
Jul 14, 09:29 AM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good. I luv this statement:
As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.
As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 10:31 AM
Sure is a different world for Apple when 4-5 months without a product update is a long time. ;)
No, that was about normal even in the PowerPC days.
Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
Yes. In the same way the PowerPC 4xx series pointed to a sub notebook.
No, that was about normal even in the PowerPC days.
Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
Yes. In the same way the PowerPC 4xx series pointed to a sub notebook.
macidiot
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
hmm, so it looks like the core duo is roughly similar to the athlon 64 x2 2.0Ghz.
Soo... the 2.16 Yonah is around 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo speed. Kind of figures, considering Merom is supposed to come in ~30% faster.
Not that great, but not that bad either.
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
hmm, so it looks like the core duo is roughly similar to the athlon 64 x2 2.0Ghz.
Soo... the 2.16 Yonah is around 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo speed. Kind of figures, considering Merom is supposed to come in ~30% faster.
Not that great, but not that bad either.
iRun26.2
Apr 22, 09:20 PM
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
Absolutely not!
Absolutely not!
InuNacho
Apr 30, 06:56 PM
There is a difference between a revision and a dramatic change. They have not really touch the computer bolted to the back of an LCD screen for a long long time. I loved the look of the Luxo iMac, the BondiBlue would be my second. The slim iMac seems cold and heartless, lack of emotion.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
I feel the same way about the new iMacs, their cold dark metal instead of the old warm happy white or bright colors.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
MacVault
Sep 19, 03:57 PM
This is great news, however, I still have a hard time talking myself into paying $10 to $15 for a DRM-"infected" movie file.
1) I cannot sell it or give it away as a gift.
2) I can't share it with a friend.
3) Video quality is not that great.
4) It has no special bonus features as does a DVD.
5) etc.
I think there needs to be a big price drop AND/OR some type of subscription model for this movie download stuff. Why pay that much $$ for something I'll watch only once or twice???!!!
1) I cannot sell it or give it away as a gift.
2) I can't share it with a friend.
3) Video quality is not that great.
4) It has no special bonus features as does a DVD.
5) etc.
I think there needs to be a big price drop AND/OR some type of subscription model for this movie download stuff. Why pay that much $$ for something I'll watch only once or twice???!!!
markw10
Sep 14, 10:39 AM
I'd love to see a headless mac, something cheaper than the Mac pro but more expandable and powerful than the Mac Mini.
Slix
Apr 25, 01:07 PM
Awesome. I can't wait to see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment