This is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Of course Intel upgrades the specs, it's just up to Apple to push these upgrades out.
And to correct foljs' post, Intel released Sandy Bridge Xeons last month. We're not waiting for them anymore. We're waiting for Apple.
No its not. If there were not anything better no one would complain about apple not refreshing the mac pro line. There has been plenty of other faster cpus Apple could have put on the mac pro like the 10 core westmere which has been out for almost 2 years vs their current offering of 6 core. There are also quad socket motherboards apple could use but again its apple who has lagged behind.
No its not. If there were not anything better no one would complain about apple not refreshing the mac pro line. There has been plenty of other faster cpus Apple could have put on the mac pro like the 10 core westmere which has been out for almost 2 years vs their current offering of 6 core. There are also quad socket motherboards apple could use but again its apple who has lagged behind.
Neither of those are solutions, and the latter isn't even physically possible for the Mac Pro without an entirely different case.
Apple will reject it. It's one thing to let a little company like Opera in, but with Google it won't just be a web browser.
It will start out as a web browser, then provide an enhanced experience for Google's own sites, eventually becoming an entire platform intended for people to spend all their time in and ignore the rest of the iPad.
Apple will reject it. It's one thing to let a little company like Opera in, but with Google it won't just be a web browser.
It will start out as a web browser, then provide an enhanced experience for Google's own sites, eventually becoming an entire platform intended for people to spend all their time in and ignore the rest of the iPad.
There is no way it gets approved.
Do you realize there are 13 different apps created by Google already on the App Store including apps that directly compete with Apple apps?
I'm all for this. You can't change the default browser anyway, so very few people will use this regularly, but at least there will be another strong option.
Do you realize there are 13 different apps created by Google already on the App Store including apps that directly compete with Apple apps?
Are they single-purpose apps or entire platforms? There are rules against platforms in the submission guidelines, and the danger of letting other company's platforms on your device was one of the points Steve raised in his open letter about why Flash was being disallowed on iOS.
And those chips have nothing to do with pros. The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, and it uses workstation chips. You're talking about <0.001% use chips that go in servers.
The easiest way to kill the Mac Pro is to put the four-chip line in it. People want a cheaper tower. Not a tower that costs twice as much as the Mac Pro now.
Unless you can make it the default browser which Apple seems to be way too restrictive on I don't see it gaining much attraction. I will still use it mainly for it's syncing functions but until I can click on a link in an email on the iphone and have it launch google's browser I don't see it hitting critical mass.
Hmmm.. now that I think about it I see a feature that google could add so that it would make at least urls in gmail emails load in their browser. Just have googles servers rewrite http links in emails that are downloaded through the iOS mail app so that it references their prefix that they have chosen. chrome://www.someurl.com. Other apps already use a special prefix so that they can be launched from an url like ssh, VNC, etc.
And those chips have nothing to do with pros. The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, and it uses workstation chips. You're talking about <0.001% use chips that go in servers.
The easiest way to kill the Mac Pro is to put the four-chip line in it. People want a cheaper tower. Not a tower that costs twice as much as the Mac Pro now.
"Pro" and "Workstation" are all just marketing terms. Doesnt matter what cpu you use. Faster options will cost more. Mac Pros already cost $5K on the high end
"Pro" and "Workstation" are all just marketing terms. Doesnt matter what cpu you use. Faster options will cost more. Mac Pros already cost $5K on the high end
And they will be costing $5,000 on the low end if you move to the four-chip system. It's not happening.
A doctor with a Mac is far more "pro" than some graphic designer that makes $30,000 a year. Same for a developer (a large fraction of which buys Mac laptops as evident in any programming conference, including Linus Torvalds and his MacBook Air), a businessman, a lawyer, etc etc.
Are you saying someone who makes more money than you is more of a mac pro user? I work with lots of doctors and lawyers who don't know there ass from their elbow when it comes to computers. Final Cut "Pro" "Pro" tools users need a machine with more options than an all-in-one.
It is the best browser around if you like poor java integration, and it calling home every few minutes (according to Little Snitch). No thanks. Safari could improve by copying Google's Tabs on Top and integrated address/ search bar. Safari, however, is better integrated with OSX then Chrome. Java, HTML, Gestures, Quicktime, and PDF support is better in Safari. Still, I'd really miss when Safari had the the tabs on top.
I honestly prefer Firefox over Chrome. I use to hate Firefox, but it has greatly improved. Since both my step dad and my Gmail accounts have been hacked, I ditched that too. I send only spam there. I use my iCloud account for wanted email.
It's basically a web page packaged as an app, so it's slow, clunky, and has none of the fluidity you'd expect from an app. It renders wider emails very badly on the tiny iPhone screen, it doesn't support iOS 5's notification centre properly, and it crashes regularly.
An integrated browser with a proper ad blocker would be nice. That said, I don't want Google to have a complete history of my web surfing history to sell to advertisers...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Of course Intel upgrades the specs, it's just up to Apple to push these upgrades out.
And to correct foljs' post, Intel released Sandy Bridge Xeons last month. We're not waiting for them anymore. We're waiting for Apple.
No its not. If there were not anything better no one would complain about apple not refreshing the mac pro line. There has been plenty of other faster cpus Apple could have put on the mac pro like the 10 core westmere which has been out for almost 2 years vs their current offering of 6 core. There are also quad socket motherboards apple could use but again its apple who has lagged behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
No its not. If there were not anything better no one would complain about apple not refreshing the mac pro line. There has been plenty of other faster cpus Apple could have put on the mac pro like the 10 core westmere which has been out for almost 2 years vs their current offering of 6 core. There are also quad socket motherboards apple could use but again its apple who has lagged behind.
Neither of those are solutions, and the latter isn't even physically possible for the Mac Pro without an entirely different case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Neither of those are solutions, and the latter isn't even physically possible for the Mac Pro without an entirely different case.
10 core cpu westmere is a solution. Its a drop in upgrade. New case = a refresh of the pro line.
what if they start antitrust process just like they did with windows and their IE bundled with OS..
Apple may be forced to open up IOS for different browsers, based on different solutions ..
Apple will reject it. It's one thing to let a little company like Opera in, but with Google it won't just be a web browser.
It will start out as a web browser, then provide an enhanced experience for Google's own sites, eventually becoming an entire platform intended for people to spend all their time in and ignore the rest of the iPad.
There is no way it gets approved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
10 core cpu westmere is a solution. Its a drop in upgrade. New case = a refresh of the pro line.
Yeah, and computers starting at $5,000. Apple has never used the four-chip line of processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Apple will reject it. It's one thing to let a little company like Opera in, but with Google it won't just be a web browser.
It will start out as a web browser, then provide an enhanced experience for Google's own sites, eventually becoming an entire platform intended for people to spend all their time in and ignore the rest of the iPad.
There is no way it gets approved.
Do you realize there are 13 different apps created by Google already on the App Store including apps that directly compete with Apple apps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, and computers starting at $5,000. Apple has never used the four-chip line of processors.
Its a pro line for a reason.
I'm all for this. You can't change the default browser anyway, so very few people will use this regularly, but at least there will be another strong option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Do you realize there are 13 different apps created by Google already on the App Store including apps that directly compete with Apple apps?
Are they single-purpose apps or entire platforms? There are rules against platforms in the submission guidelines, and the danger of letting other company's platforms on your device was one of the points Steve raised in his open letter about why Flash was being disallowed on iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
Its a pro line for a reason.
And those chips have nothing to do with pros. The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, and it uses workstation chips. You're talking about <0.001% use chips that go in servers.
The easiest way to kill the Mac Pro is to put the four-chip line in it. People want a cheaper tower. Not a tower that costs twice as much as the Mac Pro now.
Unless you can make it the default browser which Apple seems to be way too restrictive on I don't see it gaining much attraction. I will still use it mainly for it's syncing functions but until I can click on a link in an email on the iphone and have it launch google's browser I don't see it hitting critical mass.
Hmmm.. now that I think about it I see a feature that google could add so that it would make at least urls in gmail emails load in their browser. Just have googles servers rewrite http links in emails that are downloaded through the iOS mail app so that it references their prefix that they have chosen. chrome://www.someurl.com. Other apps already use a special prefix so that they can be launched from an url like ssh, VNC, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And those chips have nothing to do with pros. The Mac Pro is a workstation computer, and it uses workstation chips. You're talking about <0.001% use chips that go in servers.
The easiest way to kill the Mac Pro is to put the four-chip line in it. People want a cheaper tower. Not a tower that costs twice as much as the Mac Pro now.
"Pro" and "Workstation" are all just marketing terms. Doesnt matter what cpu you use. Faster options will cost more. Mac Pros already cost $5K on the high end
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
"Pro" and "Workstation" are all just marketing terms. Doesnt matter what cpu you use. Faster options will cost more. Mac Pros already cost $5K on the high end
And they will be costing $5,000 on the low end if you move to the four-chip system. It's not happening.
Quote:
A doctor with a Mac is far more "pro" than some graphic designer that makes $30,000 a year. Same for a developer (a large fraction of which buys Mac laptops as evident in any programming conference, including Linus Torvalds and his MacBook Air), a businessman, a lawyer, etc etc.
Are you saying someone who makes more money than you is more of a mac pro user? I work with lots of doctors and lawyers who don't know there ass from their elbow when it comes to computers. Final Cut "Pro" "Pro" tools users need a machine with more options than an all-in-one.
I honestly prefer Firefox over Chrome. I use to hate Firefox, but it has greatly improved. Since both my step dad and my Gmail accounts have been hacked, I ditched that too. I send only spam there. I use my iCloud account for wanted email.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjah5321
Are you saying someone who makes more money than you is more of a mac pro user?
You talking to me? I hope not. I don't want to have to teach you why you're wrong about this in relation to what I'm saying.
Quote:
Final Cut "Pro" "Pro" tools users need a machine with more options than an all-in-one.
Well, yeah. That's not in question. Though your attempt at calling FCPX not professional software is infantile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Why? Say more?
It's basically a web page packaged as an app, so it's slow, clunky, and has none of the fluidity you'd expect from an app. It renders wider emails very badly on the tiny iPhone screen, it doesn't support iOS 5's notification centre properly, and it crashes regularly.
An integrated browser with a proper ad blocker would be nice. That said, I don't want Google to have a complete history of my web surfing history to sell to advertisers...