CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
res1233
May 6, 04:31 AM
I'm off to start a new 'Dell in negotiations with Apple to license Mac OS X' rumor with a popular analyst. Story should be appearing on MR on Monday or Tuesday next week. Stay tuned.
You crazy bastard(Bad word, don't ban me bro). :D That would be pretty funny though.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Well, Xeons are closely related to their consumer counterparts. If Xeons can go dual-CPU, then it wouldn't be such a leap for an i7, even if it isn't possible yet. Most consumers most likely wouldn't even saturate a 4-core mac though. Eh, just food for thought I guess.
You crazy bastard(Bad word, don't ban me bro). :D That would be pretty funny though.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Well, Xeons are closely related to their consumer counterparts. If Xeons can go dual-CPU, then it wouldn't be such a leap for an i7, even if it isn't possible yet. Most consumers most likely wouldn't even saturate a 4-core mac though. Eh, just food for thought I guess.
vand0576
Aug 11, 09:32 AM
If they are truly planning this for the MacBook, then they are surely planning to bump the iMac to this chip too or better the Conroe. They continually refer to the MacBook and iMac as their "consumer line". I have been planning to buy an iMac for some time now, and this is definately an upgrade I would like to see. I'm most likely waiting until after MacWorld Expo to see what updates they will have for the iMac. The chip should be upgraded much before then, but I bet by that time they will have a few more upgrades for the iMac.
Mac Pro and Xserve have the Xeon (Woodcrest).
MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac will be upgraded to the Core 2 Duo (Merom) with iMac possibly being Conroe.
Mac Mini will probably keep the Core Duo (Yonah).
This sounds perfectly reasonable. Things are definately more interesting with the Intel chips because they are being rolled out so fast, unlike the PowerPC chips from Freescale/Motorola. It has only been about 6-7 months since the Core Duo was unveiled, now Core Duo 2 is here. Since Apple prides themselves on using advanced hardware, it only makes sense that they should upgrade the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac to the Core 2 Duo (iMac=Conroe), and continue to upgrade to the best available chips Intel is offering at the time (aside from the 'extreme' editions).
Mac Pro and Xserve have the Xeon (Woodcrest).
MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac will be upgraded to the Core 2 Duo (Merom) with iMac possibly being Conroe.
Mac Mini will probably keep the Core Duo (Yonah).
This sounds perfectly reasonable. Things are definately more interesting with the Intel chips because they are being rolled out so fast, unlike the PowerPC chips from Freescale/Motorola. It has only been about 6-7 months since the Core Duo was unveiled, now Core Duo 2 is here. Since Apple prides themselves on using advanced hardware, it only makes sense that they should upgrade the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac to the Core 2 Duo (iMac=Conroe), and continue to upgrade to the best available chips Intel is offering at the time (aside from the 'extreme' editions).
poe diddley
Aug 7, 08:17 PM
ok im super duper glad they finally released it
and i'm happy about it being quad processor and the quad 3ghz is soooo dreamy
but i have mixed feelings about the case
on one hand i'm glad they stuck with the look of the g5 powermac,
and didnt go to some plastic looking crap (i love the brushed aluminum look)
but i wish they would have made it a little different looking
and i'm happy about it being quad processor and the quad 3ghz is soooo dreamy
but i have mixed feelings about the case
on one hand i'm glad they stuck with the look of the g5 powermac,
and didnt go to some plastic looking crap (i love the brushed aluminum look)
but i wish they would have made it a little different looking
jonnysods
Mar 27, 05:00 PM
Take your time Apple, make it a good release. Don't put it out just to be available at the same time as the iPhone 5.
motulist
Aug 7, 04:54 PM
Jobs finally delivered on his 3 Ghz promise! ;) :D :D
aldejesus
Mar 30, 10:38 PM
I don't know why but my MBP 13 i7 2011 is showing "Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB graphics" on the About this mac screen on Display tab.:eek:
BTW I'm using an External Display.
BTW I'm using an External Display.
Joshuarocks
Apr 21, 09:31 PM
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
I think the iMac will take care of gamers and builders.. the mac pro is NOT a gaming device, it is a high class workstation that is designed for use with using and manipulating multi-threaded pro and audio apps.. Personally, I could care less about a new case design.. right now I just care that I can prolong the 6-core machine I have now.. and for my purposes, which are far and few between, the 6 core does everything I throw at it for a DAILY, email based machine.. I use it for dvd encoding, NO VIDEO EDITING(this area does not interest me one iota). If anything, i would use it for photography and everyday stuff, such as internet surfing, researching, writing books, etc.
I only got this for its expandability, as I despise an all in one machine like the iMac - if the screen goes, the whole thing needs to be replaced or repaired.. all in one desktops such as the imac are a dead end as one can't upgrade the processor easily if not at all..
Everyone please excuse me for my attitudes, I am going through a real tough time right now and have 103 temperature at the moment.
I think the iMac will take care of gamers and builders.. the mac pro is NOT a gaming device, it is a high class workstation that is designed for use with using and manipulating multi-threaded pro and audio apps.. Personally, I could care less about a new case design.. right now I just care that I can prolong the 6-core machine I have now.. and for my purposes, which are far and few between, the 6 core does everything I throw at it for a DAILY, email based machine.. I use it for dvd encoding, NO VIDEO EDITING(this area does not interest me one iota). If anything, i would use it for photography and everyday stuff, such as internet surfing, researching, writing books, etc.
I only got this for its expandability, as I despise an all in one machine like the iMac - if the screen goes, the whole thing needs to be replaced or repaired.. all in one desktops such as the imac are a dead end as one can't upgrade the processor easily if not at all..
Everyone please excuse me for my attitudes, I am going through a real tough time right now and have 103 temperature at the moment.
aswitcher
Aug 6, 07:22 AM
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
That would be a very solid step, especially if they ship soon.
I hope the iMac has its guts reconfigured to be more accesible like the early G5 was.
Also on the iMac. A wirelesskeyboard and mighty mouse option might be nice.
Also, a 500 HDD upgrade that didn't cost the earth.
A single Gig stick as standard would also be a nice step, even if only for the 20"
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
Seems fairly sound. i would be even happier if the low end was cheaper with slightly less speed and video. I would be immesly happy if its half as thick as the old one and has a verticle slot drive so I can lay it on its side and use it as a multimedia centre. I just wonder then where the ir reception will work(side of the slot like the mini?)
The best should come with 2GB ram as standard. But it should be well priced.
3) Leopard talk
I do wonder if they will do this earlier...
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
I think the new screens will appear along side the Mac Pro annoucement -like you suggest.
I think the vibe for me is iPod and iPhone will be Paris, along with videom downloads.
I would really like to see a new wireless Apple Keyboard with dedicated function buttons (multimedia) or a wired one with illumination and even lcd etc.
I wonder if video over new airport expresses with hdmi out would be a goer. Again might be better for Paris or when the 802.11n standard comes out.
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
That would be a very solid step, especially if they ship soon.
I hope the iMac has its guts reconfigured to be more accesible like the early G5 was.
Also on the iMac. A wirelesskeyboard and mighty mouse option might be nice.
Also, a 500 HDD upgrade that didn't cost the earth.
A single Gig stick as standard would also be a nice step, even if only for the 20"
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
Seems fairly sound. i would be even happier if the low end was cheaper with slightly less speed and video. I would be immesly happy if its half as thick as the old one and has a verticle slot drive so I can lay it on its side and use it as a multimedia centre. I just wonder then where the ir reception will work(side of the slot like the mini?)
The best should come with 2GB ram as standard. But it should be well priced.
3) Leopard talk
I do wonder if they will do this earlier...
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
I think the new screens will appear along side the Mac Pro annoucement -like you suggest.
I think the vibe for me is iPod and iPhone will be Paris, along with videom downloads.
I would really like to see a new wireless Apple Keyboard with dedicated function buttons (multimedia) or a wired one with illumination and even lcd etc.
I wonder if video over new airport expresses with hdmi out would be a goer. Again might be better for Paris or when the 802.11n standard comes out.
wschutz
Mar 30, 05:56 PM
MacRumors is keeping up with this obvious error. I doubt Lion will be ready even by the WWDC. A summer release is what I predict.
Thanks Captain Obvious... I think that is what Apple said at the very beginning ;)
Thanks Captain Obvious... I think that is what Apple said at the very beginning ;)
Prom1
Aug 4, 03:55 PM
I got a question ... is the MacBook & MBP batteries Li-Ion or Li-Polymer? If the former then what i want MOST in the MBP is Li-Polymer and really fold the polymers and compress them to get a higher density of energy for longer battery life.
> The next generation of the MBP I'd really like to see the Intel technology for sub display (not unlike that on flip cellphones) to display AudioCD or running app information on the display or AirPort Ex hotspots within range (SSID, Signal Strength, VoIP signals etc). I'd also like to see a higher resolution - that maintains the same or much higher focus and zoom+Auto Focus - iSight thats built in and somewhat rotable (maybe somehow in the sell without external finger control).
> Magnesium or some kind of Metal Polymer combination that is very resistance or displaces heat efficiently but absorbing enough heat for hours of DVD, Video editing on our laps without burning them. Something thats much like ceramic tiles and how they displace heat efficiently.
> Me ... I'll settle for minimum 256MB video memory for ALL MBP and the built to order 512; and built to order 128MB on the Mac Books.
Question why do the old G4 powermacs of 933mhz or lower STILL selling highly used for such a high price - their almost obsolute in their abilities compared to new hardware. as an example on another forum sight someone is trying to sell a Dual 1Ghz QuickSilver for $1000 1.5GB total memory capacity (not that its filled with that much). Isnt this ridiculous?
> The next generation of the MBP I'd really like to see the Intel technology for sub display (not unlike that on flip cellphones) to display AudioCD or running app information on the display or AirPort Ex hotspots within range (SSID, Signal Strength, VoIP signals etc). I'd also like to see a higher resolution - that maintains the same or much higher focus and zoom+Auto Focus - iSight thats built in and somewhat rotable (maybe somehow in the sell without external finger control).
> Magnesium or some kind of Metal Polymer combination that is very resistance or displaces heat efficiently but absorbing enough heat for hours of DVD, Video editing on our laps without burning them. Something thats much like ceramic tiles and how they displace heat efficiently.
> Me ... I'll settle for minimum 256MB video memory for ALL MBP and the built to order 512; and built to order 128MB on the Mac Books.
Question why do the old G4 powermacs of 933mhz or lower STILL selling highly used for such a high price - their almost obsolute in their abilities compared to new hardware. as an example on another forum sight someone is trying to sell a Dual 1Ghz QuickSilver for $1000 1.5GB total memory capacity (not that its filled with that much). Isnt this ridiculous?
extraextra
Jul 29, 10:08 PM
Any ideas on the price tag for this phone?
Hopefully they release it with Cingular. I've always had wonky connections with Cingular though, maybe it's my phone. Ironically, I've noticed that the signal is the worst inside the mall - next to the Apple store. :p
Hopefully they release it with Cingular. I've always had wonky connections with Cingular though, maybe it's my phone. Ironically, I've noticed that the signal is the worst inside the mall - next to the Apple store. :p
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:24 PM
iPhones are still better.
Unfortunately, only 25% of the US market agrees with you. ;)
Unfortunately, only 25% of the US market agrees with you. ;)
Skika
Apr 24, 06:13 PM
WOW!
This would be AWESOME!
I can't imagine my 27" iMac with the same resolution as an iPhone 4!:eek:
This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future.....:(
Well Done Apple! You've done it again!
Wow, that would look rly horrible, i mean 960x640 on a 27 inch screen:eek:
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
This would be AWESOME!
I can't imagine my 27" iMac with the same resolution as an iPhone 4!:eek:
This said, it could potentially make macs more expensive in the future.....:(
Well Done Apple! You've done it again!
Wow, that would look rly horrible, i mean 960x640 on a 27 inch screen:eek:
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
syaman
Mar 29, 09:37 AM
Oh well
---
For U.S. Customers Only
It appears that you are attempting to use Amazon Cloud Player from outside the U.S. This service is intended for U.S. customers only.
---
---
For U.S. Customers Only
It appears that you are attempting to use Amazon Cloud Player from outside the U.S. This service is intended for U.S. customers only.
---
darrens
Aug 4, 06:16 PM
Afterall it's just a couple lines of code. :D
Shouldn't be much code - the Adobe apps are already cross platform so there shouldn't be many endian issues to sort out. It's just a matter of changing development environments to use XCode and re-testing.
Not simple, but not something that should take almost 2 years either.
Shouldn't be much code - the Adobe apps are already cross platform so there shouldn't be many endian issues to sort out. It's just a matter of changing development environments to use XCode and re-testing.
Not simple, but not something that should take almost 2 years either.
SPUY767
Aug 7, 04:57 PM
Jobs finally delivered on his 3 Ghz promise! ;) :D :D
With the Wicked cooling system that I'm sure these beasts have. It won't be long until some fool writes a firmware patch that boosts the output up to 4G's at least.
With the Wicked cooling system that I'm sure these beasts have. It won't be long until some fool writes a firmware patch that boosts the output up to 4G's at least.
BoRegardless
Nov 23, 04:10 PM
I wish Apple would keep features at a minimum. Stop putting features in that I don't care about.
How about letting users DELETE any feature they don't want (Delete or Hide, I don't care but get rid of them unless I specifically want it: never use games, calculator, ring tones, color screen is worthless in sunlight...the list goes on)
How about letting users DELETE any feature they don't want (Delete or Hide, I don't care but get rid of them unless I specifically want it: never use games, calculator, ring tones, color screen is worthless in sunlight...the list goes on)
daneoni
Mar 31, 05:35 AM
I was sharing this because I found it interesting, its supposed to be just 384MB shared. Just thinking if Lion enables more memory shared??:rolleyes:
No it's doesn't. Snow Leopard also reports 512MB
No it's doesn't. Snow Leopard also reports 512MB
Durendal
Nov 26, 12:44 PM
Not. Gonna. Happen. The tablet market is very small, and for good reason. Why use a tablet when a laptop fits the bill? Or a PDA? It's a glorified scribble toy. Apple's not going to try and grab such a miniscule market. There's no reason to even try.
kev0476
Aug 3, 11:04 PM
they are just cycling through old rumors now... only difference, it is so close to wwdc.
mcrain
Apr 14, 04:25 PM
It's time to raise the capital gains rate and make it progressively tied to income taxes.
Or just treat all income as ordinary income and eliminate all the preferential treatment certain forms of income enjoy. Eliminate capital gain, business, gift and estate taxes, and treat all income from all sources as ordinary income and tax accordingly.
Or just treat all income as ordinary income and eliminate all the preferential treatment certain forms of income enjoy. Eliminate capital gain, business, gift and estate taxes, and treat all income from all sources as ordinary income and tax accordingly.
amanset
Aug 2, 12:09 PM
Why not? I have one in excellent condition that I don't need anymore seeing I moved over to the MacTel iMac. I'm across the pond so can I sell it to you?
Due to hazardous substances contained within.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
Due to hazardous substances contained within.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
madmax14304
Apr 21, 03:03 PM
They cannot just abandon the rack mounted server market. Making the mac pro into a 3U format with optional rack mount ear would be ideal. However, to merge the Pro and Server market, I'd like to see:
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
Hell, supermicro just released a new 1U case with Redundant PSU, only 19.8" Deep and has 4xSATA/SAS hot swaps. It's the 813MTQ-R400CB. Cannot wait to snag one.
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
Hell, supermicro just released a new 1U case with Redundant PSU, only 19.8" Deep and has 4xSATA/SAS hot swaps. It's the 813MTQ-R400CB. Cannot wait to snag one.
No comments:
Post a Comment