Bregalad
Aug 29, 02:58 PM
To cut the price of the Mini by $100, Apple better hope Intel are doing a "Half Price" cut which is extremely unlikely. How much would it hurt Apple to just double the height of the Mini and put a 1.83 GHz Conroe (Allendale) in there and a 3.5" Hard Drive? I'm pretty sure no-one would be whining about that. It would also get the price back down to $499 easy!
I've been saying since the mini came out that it's too small. Even if it had been twice as big it still would've been very small. Going bigger would have allowed a 3.5" HD and a more standard logic board. Such a mega-mini would really be the media storage machine people are dreaming about because a 250GB HD is about the same price as an 80GB notebook drive while offering much better performance.
Of course I've also been saying that Apple needs to have a machine in the iMac price range that doesn't include a display. Remove the LCD, put in a desktop CPU and an upgradable video card and you're back where you started cost wise. The Mac Pro is such a good deal for people who need that kind of power that having a mini tower or desktop with fewer drive bays at the 20" iMac price point wouldn't take away any Pro sales. I think such a machine would attract a significant number of current PC users who can't cope with the all-in-one, can't upgrade anything concept of the iMac.
Having another tower would also drive Cinema Display sales. Maybe not a huge amount given that Apple displays are significantly more expensive than the competition, but any increase would be good for Apple's bottom line.
So why don't I like iMacs? In 14 years of owning Macs I've upgraded, on average, every two years. It makes absolutely no sense to toss aside a perfectly good display every two years when I can simply plug a new computer into it. When there is a major improvement in display technology I can change on my own timetable. Oh and I recently upgraded my RAM without having to remove any first and installed a second HD in preparation for Time Machine. Try doing that with an iMac.
I've been saying since the mini came out that it's too small. Even if it had been twice as big it still would've been very small. Going bigger would have allowed a 3.5" HD and a more standard logic board. Such a mega-mini would really be the media storage machine people are dreaming about because a 250GB HD is about the same price as an 80GB notebook drive while offering much better performance.
Of course I've also been saying that Apple needs to have a machine in the iMac price range that doesn't include a display. Remove the LCD, put in a desktop CPU and an upgradable video card and you're back where you started cost wise. The Mac Pro is such a good deal for people who need that kind of power that having a mini tower or desktop with fewer drive bays at the 20" iMac price point wouldn't take away any Pro sales. I think such a machine would attract a significant number of current PC users who can't cope with the all-in-one, can't upgrade anything concept of the iMac.
Having another tower would also drive Cinema Display sales. Maybe not a huge amount given that Apple displays are significantly more expensive than the competition, but any increase would be good for Apple's bottom line.
So why don't I like iMacs? In 14 years of owning Macs I've upgraded, on average, every two years. It makes absolutely no sense to toss aside a perfectly good display every two years when I can simply plug a new computer into it. When there is a major improvement in display technology I can change on my own timetable. Oh and I recently upgraded my RAM without having to remove any first and installed a second HD in preparation for Time Machine. Try doing that with an iMac.
Perrumpo
Nov 26, 05:39 PM
Picked up a 23" Samsung 1080p display from Best Buy for $139. Loving it!
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c383/agt144/IMGP6687.jpg
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c383/agt144/IMGP6683.jpg
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c383/agt144/IMGP6687.jpg
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c383/agt144/IMGP6683.jpg
notabadname
Apr 21, 11:54 AM
Yeah, because Google doesn't track any data on people :rolleyes:
h1r0ll3r
Feb 22, 11:47 AM
Man I hate this friggin monitor. Can't wait until I get a new(er) one.
mkrishnan
Jan 7, 06:33 PM
All I want for MWSF is a new keyboard, because it's time we had some media buttons. And a paint app so that I don't have to buy Photoshop if I want to doodle something.
Lunja, people actually use media buttons? :eek: I wonder, do other people here want this? I specifically don't want it. I like the way my wireless kb looks now.
Anyway, the paint program thing is one that thousands of switchers comment on. I do rather agree that there's no good simple answer to that one. Not that Apple shouldn't just bundle something simple, but apparently one MR member went so far as to write the thing himself (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=159877&highlight=posterpaint)! :eek: :D
Lunja, people actually use media buttons? :eek: I wonder, do other people here want this? I specifically don't want it. I like the way my wireless kb looks now.
Anyway, the paint program thing is one that thousands of switchers comment on. I do rather agree that there's no good simple answer to that one. Not that Apple shouldn't just bundle something simple, but apparently one MR member went so far as to write the thing himself (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=159877&highlight=posterpaint)! :eek: :D
twoodcc
Dec 13, 11:31 AM
congrats to whiterabbit for 4 million points!
Frobozz
Mar 25, 09:40 AM
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
steviem
Mar 18, 07:46 AM
The only way to impose a no fly zone is to have your fighter jets and bombers in the region. Also they have to destroy/disarm Libya's SAMs and possibly destroy/disable Libyan Air Force air fields.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
Remember several Gulf States are part of this force too, so it isn't 'the West imposing democracy' like before.
There was nothing about us making up lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just footage and communication from the people of Libya and news organizations showing the devastation Gaddafi is putting upon his own people.
I see no reason for troops to enter Libya, apart from the UN once the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi if there is a need for aid. Although I'd much rather see UN over in Japan getting food and supplies to cities affected by the recent Earthquake/tsunami and nuclear reactor scares.
UberMac
Jan 1, 07:04 PM
Prettyful picture from Apple.com hompage
*pwetty*
*eyes glaze over*
Me likes!
Uber
*pwetty*
*eyes glaze over*
Me likes!
Uber
kingtj
Sep 7, 02:24 PM
I thought this was a great idea too, except when I mull it over - I'm not so sure Apple will really go there. With the larger variety of Intel iMacs available now, it looks like Apple's really trying to build one for every possible home-user or small office user's need. I agree that it'd be nice to have an expandable, upgradable Mac with no display built-in that doesn't carry the price tag of the Mac Pro line -- but think about users like us who say that. We're in the minority of "power users" or "more advanced users". Apple has made it pretty clear that if you're in that category, they want you to invest in one of their "Pro" systems. Otherwise, they cater to folks who see their computer as an appliance or tool and just want something they can pretty much plug in and use. These customers are not interested or comfortable doing things like opening up a system and upgrading video cards.
The Mini is Apple's answer to any remaining "casual users" who throw a fit because they just want a new computer to plug into their existing keyboard, mouse, monitor, and maybe USB hub they bought before.....
The "void" you talk about in Apple's product line is one I *think* Apple leaves there willfully.
cmon apple. get a clue.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
The Mini is Apple's answer to any remaining "casual users" who throw a fit because they just want a new computer to plug into their existing keyboard, mouse, monitor, and maybe USB hub they bought before.....
The "void" you talk about in Apple's product line is one I *think* Apple leaves there willfully.
cmon apple. get a clue.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
wizard
Jun 22, 03:39 PM
Let be clear here Touch screens are of limited usefulness in the normal desktop range of activities. You can read about ergonomics for the details or take this Tibit of experience, they are fatiguing to use. I base this on experience in industrial settings where people will often go out of their way to make use of a keyboard, mouse or other entry device instead of the touch screen. Apples quality GUI would have no impact on the negative associated with extensive touch screen usage.
The idea of a layer being used as a replacement for Dashboard has some appeal as currently Dashboard sucks. However this would only work well by emulating an ARM processor which is probably as wasteful as JavaScript. If I was Apple I'd think long and hard about that.
Further I'm not even sure I agree with the premise that a touch facility would be hard to integrate into Mac OS/X. It would seem to me that adding another layer would be more difficult for everybody concerned, especially developers. Their goal maybe an exact emulation of iOS gestures but I'm not even sure that makes sense. You really need a gesture system tailored to the desktop that hives with track pad usage.
So while I can see Apple doing something in this regard I don't think a Touch screen will be there to turn the Mac into an iOS device. Far from it infact. Even if they model the Touch screen interface on the I devices the goals and real usability will be vastly different. Even worst consummer acceptance and use wount be there. Even the geeks will quickly discover that in the vast majority of cases a Touch screen on the desktop sucks.
What will be very interesting is the minority of apps that will benefit from such an interface. It is just that many desktop users will never use such apps so the whole touch screen thing is a bit of a joke. For many users what Apple should be doing is going after voice input/dictation. Put all those cores to work on an AI that can process human language.
Dave
The idea of a layer being used as a replacement for Dashboard has some appeal as currently Dashboard sucks. However this would only work well by emulating an ARM processor which is probably as wasteful as JavaScript. If I was Apple I'd think long and hard about that.
Further I'm not even sure I agree with the premise that a touch facility would be hard to integrate into Mac OS/X. It would seem to me that adding another layer would be more difficult for everybody concerned, especially developers. Their goal maybe an exact emulation of iOS gestures but I'm not even sure that makes sense. You really need a gesture system tailored to the desktop that hives with track pad usage.
So while I can see Apple doing something in this regard I don't think a Touch screen will be there to turn the Mac into an iOS device. Far from it infact. Even if they model the Touch screen interface on the I devices the goals and real usability will be vastly different. Even worst consummer acceptance and use wount be there. Even the geeks will quickly discover that in the vast majority of cases a Touch screen on the desktop sucks.
What will be very interesting is the minority of apps that will benefit from such an interface. It is just that many desktop users will never use such apps so the whole touch screen thing is a bit of a joke. For many users what Apple should be doing is going after voice input/dictation. Put all those cores to work on an AI that can process human language.
Dave
Multimedia
Aug 26, 07:00 PM
A Little OT but mini TV related: Someone here made a post I can't find that said the EyeTV hybrid HDTV tuner was only relevant to less than 5% of the market. So I did a little Google and found out we are already at 20% HD penetration in USA (http://www.screendigest.com/reports/06highdeftv/readmore/view.html). So I thought I'd just let you all know the Mac mini as an HDTV + Tivo with a 24" display can be set up for about $1300. With the cheapest Dual Link DVI 15" MBP you can find would drive a 30" display for a total of about $2900 soon.
I have a 2GHz Dual Core G5 that can support a 30" Display only paid $900 for. When Dell puts the 30" up on the 20% off block it will only cost $1900 - $380 = $1520. So we are looking at Mac TVs in the 24" - 30" size for as little as $1450 - $2500. That seems pretty amazing to me.
$599 Mac mini Core 2 Duo + EyeTV hybrid $150 + 24" Dell $700 (20% off Sale Price) = $1450 new.
Used any solo or dual G5 PM with a Dual Link Video Card + 30" Dell $1520 (20% off Sale Price) = $2500 or less.
I have a 2GHz Dual Core G5 that can support a 30" Display only paid $900 for. When Dell puts the 30" up on the 20% off block it will only cost $1900 - $380 = $1520. So we are looking at Mac TVs in the 24" - 30" size for as little as $1450 - $2500. That seems pretty amazing to me.
$599 Mac mini Core 2 Duo + EyeTV hybrid $150 + 24" Dell $700 (20% off Sale Price) = $1450 new.
Used any solo or dual G5 PM with a Dual Link Video Card + 30" Dell $1520 (20% off Sale Price) = $2500 or less.
bursthead
Mar 25, 04:09 PM
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/e75a/
Joystick for ipad
Joystick for ipad
motulist
Aug 7, 04:00 AM
Is there a car phone version that plugs directly into the tape deck?
No, but 3rd parties sell an adaptor that will let you do it.
No, but 3rd parties sell an adaptor that will let you do it.
alust2013
Apr 10, 05:40 PM
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
MicroByte
Sep 14, 08:56 PM
@kelving525 - Which BB did you get the Belkin from? I'm about to cave and get the light blue one. Also, it really looks like a dark blue in your pics, is it really purple?
Multimedia
Nov 23, 10:32 AM
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I thought the Mac mini would be Core 2 Duo by now for sure. I guess they still have quite a backlog of Core Duo units not yet sold. Maybe they're getting killer discounts from Intel on those old slow Core Duo processors.
Seems like the supply of the faster Clovertowns is probably weak enough for Apple to wait until January at least. My own thought now is that if we have to wait for January, might as well wait a little longer for the Stoakley-Seaburg (SS) chips (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) to ship so the first 8-core Mac Pro can be a really killer machine. Then there's also the issue of Leopard shipping about the same time the full on 8-core with SS setup will be really ready in quantity so Apple can keep up with demand.
So I've set my brain on March '07 now so I won't have another prematurely earger anticipation attack before then. That way if it happens sooner I'll be pleasantly surprised but still may wait for it to ship with Leopard. I will also feel a lot better spending $4k+ on an 8-core with SS inside as well. I'm thinking that may be Apple's plan too. Seems like they would not want to release their first 8-core MP crippled with bottlenecks they know will be opened up in only a few more months. It's also gonna be the most expensive Mac ever sold and I'm sure they want to give their customers their money's worth while at the same time giving their competition headaches. ;) The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:Yeah I was referring to the fact that it's in HD and some of the best music concert editing I have ever seen. Just amazing Emmy Award worthy editing.
The last concert I saw across the pond was a YES concert in Genoa Italy in summer of 1972. :D
Seems like the supply of the faster Clovertowns is probably weak enough for Apple to wait until January at least. My own thought now is that if we have to wait for January, might as well wait a little longer for the Stoakley-Seaburg (SS) chips (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) to ship so the first 8-core Mac Pro can be a really killer machine. Then there's also the issue of Leopard shipping about the same time the full on 8-core with SS setup will be really ready in quantity so Apple can keep up with demand.
So I've set my brain on March '07 now so I won't have another prematurely earger anticipation attack before then. That way if it happens sooner I'll be pleasantly surprised but still may wait for it to ship with Leopard. I will also feel a lot better spending $4k+ on an 8-core with SS inside as well. I'm thinking that may be Apple's plan too. Seems like they would not want to release their first 8-core MP crippled with bottlenecks they know will be opened up in only a few more months. It's also gonna be the most expensive Mac ever sold and I'm sure they want to give their customers their money's worth while at the same time giving their competition headaches. ;) The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:Yeah I was referring to the fact that it's in HD and some of the best music concert editing I have ever seen. Just amazing Emmy Award worthy editing.
The last concert I saw across the pond was a YES concert in Genoa Italy in summer of 1972. :D
tny
Jul 18, 07:20 AM
This does play into the news published about the industry allowing people to burn movies to DVDs but can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
eemsTV
Apr 19, 01:15 PM
oh joy:D, wondering what the high-end iMac will look like (since that's the one I'm planning on getting!)
Blasphemic
Jan 7, 05:26 AM
Yes, it's a Vauxhall Corsa. Brilliant car to start in, never broken down either. Except I did brake the hand-break once :D Pulled it to hard I think, had to park the car in gear over night.
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
yea starts everytime =)
The electronics on the other hand is acting abit up so when i brake or use the indicators the fog lights come on in the dashboard, but its those little things that make it so special :P
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:58 PM
I am not interested in Windows APIs. That's how the hardware capabilities are referred to. OpenGL has tended to lag in new features, so if the hardware has extra capabilities, it will probably support some future OpenGL version too.
OpenGL is much more like Direct3D. A part of DirectX. DirectX is just a collection of multiple API's. DirectSound is like OpenAL for example. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with.
OpenGL is much more like Direct3D. A part of DirectX. DirectX is just a collection of multiple API's. DirectSound is like OpenAL for example. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with.
JackAxe
Mar 25, 07:56 PM
It is quite impressive, but a racing game is definitely not the sort of thing that is remotely comfortable to play on a touch screen. They need precise control to be fun and no tablet or touch screen device will ever off that.
Not only precision, but force feedback, so that one can feel the difference between an open wheel racer vs muscle car, or the force of a turn based on the speed, or when they've damaged a wheel, or gone off road, etc. :)
This iPad game is more or less a novelty.
Not only precision, but force feedback, so that one can feel the difference between an open wheel racer vs muscle car, or the force of a turn based on the speed, or when they've damaged a wheel, or gone off road, etc. :)
This iPad game is more or less a novelty.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:43 PM
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).
What else you got?
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar