Why are you guys thinking it's a Sony Walkman that Apple doesn't want displayed at the Expo?
It's the Zune that they're worried about. Don't want all those 3rd party iPod accessories makers showing off their accessories that are also Zune-compatible now, do we?
When there were clones, we saw them all over the place.
As the iPod plays MP3's among other formats, and Apple's AAC/Fairplay can be legally converted to play on other players, there is no reason why Apple shouldn't allow them.
After all, if there is music on iTunes that is not available somewhere else, people might wish to buy it from Apple, and convert it to play on their players as well.
After all, Apple produces software that runs on other machines. I could see a PC there running some Apple software. They would be selling that machine, but Apple's products as well.
If MS did this, we would say that it was wrong. Why should it not be wrong here as well? At the very least, it looks bad. Apple is no longer a small, "beleagered" company, but a large, highly profitable one, that is growing substantially.
If it didn't hurt their business before, there is no reason why it should now.
Exactly. Besides they shouldn't have much to worry about it's not like other companies really want to run crazy campains for their players at the expo anyways. It was probably at a minimum to begin with.
Why are you guys thinking it's a Sony Walkman that Apple doesn't want displayed at the Expo?
It's the Zune that they're worried about. Don't want all those 3rd party iPod accessories makers showing off their accessories that are also Zune-compatible now, do we?
Does anyone even know what Zune really looks like yet, let alone be able to design accessories for it?
Does anyone even know what Zune really looks like yet, let alone be able to design accessories for it?
I pictures have gone around, assuming they are real. The feature set is pretty much known. Larger screen than the 5G, round controller which is not a clickwheel, WiFi, etc. About the same size as the 5G.
To put it in perspective:When I boght my G4/400 in 2000 AMD would reach 800 MHz with their budget CPU and 1.2GHz with the Athlon a speed the G4 supercomputer chip would reach two years later , a timewhen the Intel were about 2 GHz past that mark.
So shortages for some weeks does not scare me that much8)
To put it in perspective:When I boght my G4/400 in 2000 AMD would reach 800 MHz with their budget CPU and 1.2GHz with the Athlon a speed the G4 supercomputer chip would reach two years later , a timewhen the Intel were about 2 GHz past that mark.
Comparing clock rates of completely different architectures "puts" nothing "in perspective". You're implying that a 2 GHz Pentium 4 is just as fast as a hypothetical G4, when the latter would, in fact, have been quite a bit faster, much like a 1.5 GHz Core Solo is much faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4.
- the "iPad" with a smaller screen and limited functionality (take notes, calendar, email, addresses).
Of course, all those rumours of a "MacBook Thin" have the wrong name don't they? It's gotta be a "MacBook Nano".
edit: Of course... just because it's ancient, and therefore I've had a couple of WWDC & MWSF without seeing it, doesn't make me any less sure. (Okay... so maybe it does, a little!)
Comparing clock rates of completely different architectures "puts" nothing "in perspective". You're implying that a 2 GHz Pentium 4 is just as fast as a hypothetical G4, when the latter would, in fact, have been quite a bit faster, much like a 1.5 GHz Core Solo is much faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4.
I did not intend to imply that, nor do I think I did. I have Sempron 1.8 at home that is faster than a 2 GHz Pentium 4 and much much faster than a 2 GHz Celery So I am well aware about the discrepancy between performance and clock speed when comparing different CPUs.
However, I do more than imply, I claim that the 1200 MHz Athlon was beating the 400-500 MHz G4s in everything by a large margin exluding some few things related to Alti-Vec. The G4 is/was an elegant signal processing CPU for embedded applications. But as a personal computer CPU way behind its contemporary competition and stayed that way for 7 long embarrasing years. The G4 may have been faster per Hz than the AMD/Intels but not by 2 to 3 times and they were that much behind clock wise. It Hertz to think about it
But I digress back to the previous post of mine
My point is that Motorolas delays with the 68060 as a reply to the 486 forced Apple to migrate to PPC. Later Motorolas delays with getting G4 on the bus both FSB and CPU wise (pun intended ) forced Apple to move to IBM and the 970 CPU. For various reasons Apple now have left the IBM 970 as well. In that context a delay or shortage of some Intel motherboards does not seem that dramatic/traumatic.
All the lineups are in good shape no CPU is deperate need of replacement. More and more apps are Intel native. My hope is that Apple in OS 10.6 adress some old outstanding issues in the OS. Having all sounds through the OS instead of having it offloaded like windows have had for many many years, is not a good thing.
The file system HFS was founded when hard disks were optional and the file system handled some hundred of files...
However, I do more than imply, I claim that the 1200 MHz Athlon was beating the 400-500 MHz G4s in everything by a large margin exluding some few things related to Alti-Vec. The G4 is/was an elegant signal processing CPU for embedded applications. But as a personal computer CPU way behind its contemporary competition and stayed that way for 7 long embarrasing years. The G4 may have been faster per Hz than the AMD/Intels but not by 2 to 3 times and they were that much behind clock wise. It Hertz to think about it
True. The G4 did not evolve as desired by Apple (or their customers), partially due to production failures on Motorola's/Freescale's part, and partially because Freescale lost interest in Apple as a customer.
Quote:
My point is that Motorolas delays with the 68060 as a reply to the 486 forced Apple to migrate to PPC.
Not true. At that point, Apple had already worked with Motorola and IBM on the PowerPC anyway. Sticking to 68k even longer was never an option.
Quote:
Later Motorolas delays with getting G4 on the bus both FSB and CPU wise (pun intended ) forced Apple to move to IBM and the 970 CPU. For various reasons Apple now have left the IBM 970 as well. In that context a delay or shortage of some Intel motherboards does not seem that dramatic/traumatic.
Yes, that's very true. I'm not worried about this delay.
Quote:
Having all sounds through the OS instead of having it offloaded like windows have had for many many years, is not a good thing.
I'm not sure I understand this.
Quote:
The file system HFS was founded when hard disks were optional and the file system handled some hundred of files...
That claim is often made but never really proved. Is there evidence that HFS+ is significantly slower at accessing/handling many files than NTFS and comparable file systems are?
In widows the sound routed through sound cards and need not to pass through the CPU. In the mac it has to go through the CPU even if there is a sound card present. This is how core audio handles sound.
With the mac having as good CPUs as any other PC, Apple now can concentrate on making a very good OS instead of having a look out for alternaive CPUs up in the rigg at all times.
Having Win available both in boot camp and Parallels and the game Win 32 API wrapper is also a good thing
The hope of getting FSI enabled graphic cards in the PC and then Mac market is a good thing.
The tough migrations from 68k to PPC and then to Intel have forced Apple to shed a lot of legacy code and that is a very good thing. Compare that to Windows or Mac OS 7.5.5rel2 that could run on anything from a Mac Plus with 8 MHz CPU and optional hard disk to a 350 MHz 9600, there the mac also had a lot of spagetti code
Exactly. Besides they shouldn't have much to worry about it's not like other companies really want to run crazy campains for their players at the expo anyways. It was probably at a minimum to begin with.
I don't think the issue is so much the display/sale of competing players. You're right in that no one's going to run a "crazy campaign" at an Apple show.
However, what about companies that sell iPod accessories? If those accessories (or nearly identical ones) will also work for Zune, Apple will want to squelch that kind of information.
I think that's what this issue is really all about. The accessories, not the players themselves.
I don't think the issue is so much the display/sale of competing players. You're right in that no one's going to run a "crazy campaign" at an Apple show.
However, what about companies that sell iPod accessories? If those accessories (or nearly identical ones) will also work for Zune, Apple will want to squelch that kind of information.
I think that's what this issue is really all about. The accessories, not the players themselves.
Comments
Landmines?
*edit* hmm, the pic isn't displaying...
click here then: http://www.geocities.com/celemourn/WELCOME.JPG
My only advice is: Tread lightly.
It's the Zune that they're worried about. Don't want all those 3rd party iPod accessories makers showing off their accessories that are also Zune-compatible now, do we?
When there were clones, we saw them all over the place.
As the iPod plays MP3's among other formats, and Apple's AAC/Fairplay can be legally converted to play on other players, there is no reason why Apple shouldn't allow them.
After all, if there is music on iTunes that is not available somewhere else, people might wish to buy it from Apple, and convert it to play on their players as well.
After all, Apple produces software that runs on other machines. I could see a PC there running some Apple software. They would be selling that machine, but Apple's products as well.
If MS did this, we would say that it was wrong. Why should it not be wrong here as well? At the very least, it looks bad. Apple is no longer a small, "beleagered" company, but a large, highly profitable one, that is growing substantially.
If it didn't hurt their business before, there is no reason why it should now.
Exactly. Besides they shouldn't have much to worry about it's not like other companies really want to run crazy campains for their players at the expo anyways. It was probably at a minimum to begin with.
/me pictures Apple previewing Leopard at an MSDN conference.
I could see Apple doing that and showing off Boot Camp. Perfectly logical.
I could see Apple doing that and showing off Boot Camp. Perfectly logical.
/me pictures Apple giving THE SAME preview they did at WWDC.
/me pictures Apple giving THE SAME preview they did at WWDC.
Well, THAT would be interesting!
Why are you guys thinking it's a Sony Walkman that Apple doesn't want displayed at the Expo?
It's the Zune that they're worried about. Don't want all those 3rd party iPod accessories makers showing off their accessories that are also Zune-compatible now, do we?
Does anyone even know what Zune really looks like yet, let alone be able to design accessories for it?
Does anyone even know what Zune really looks like yet, let alone be able to design accessories for it?
http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/index...mic=2006-07-14
Does anyone even know what Zune really looks like yet, let alone be able to design accessories for it?
I pictures have gone around, assuming they are real. The feature set is pretty much known. Larger screen than the 5G, round controller which is not a clickwheel, WiFi, etc. About the same size as the 5G.
...the publication said in the otherwise substance-less report.
Thanks AI.
To put it in perspective:When I boght my G4/400 in 2000 AMD would reach 800 MHz with their budget CPU and 1.2GHz with the Athlon a speed the G4 supercomputer chip would reach two years later , a timewhen the Intel were about 2 GHz past that mark.
So shortages for some weeks does not scare me that much8)
Regarding the intel delay.
To put it in perspective:When I boght my G4/400 in 2000 AMD would reach 800 MHz with their budget CPU and 1.2GHz with the Athlon a speed the G4 supercomputer chip would reach two years later , a timewhen the Intel were about 2 GHz past that mark.
Comparing clock rates of completely different architectures "puts" nothing "in perspective". You're implying that a 2 GHz Pentium 4 is just as fast as a hypothetical G4, when the latter would, in fact, have been quite a bit faster, much like a 1.5 GHz Core Solo is much faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4.
Bring on the MacPod!!!
Bring on the MacPod!!!
I'm still firmly behind my ancient prediction of
- a "MacPad" (10inch or so, with full OSX) and
- the "iPad" with a smaller screen and limited functionality (take notes, calendar, email, addresses).
Of course, all those rumours of a "MacBook Thin" have the wrong name don't they? It's gotta be a "MacBook Nano".
edit: Of course... just because it's ancient, and therefore I've had a couple of WWDC & MWSF without seeing it, doesn't make me any less sure. (Okay... so maybe it does, a little!)
Comparing clock rates of completely different architectures "puts" nothing "in perspective". You're implying that a 2 GHz Pentium 4 is just as fast as a hypothetical G4, when the latter would, in fact, have been quite a bit faster, much like a 1.5 GHz Core Solo is much faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4.
I did not intend to imply that, nor do I think I did. I have Sempron 1.8 at home that is faster than a 2 GHz Pentium 4 and much much faster than a 2 GHz Celery
However, I do more than imply, I claim that the 1200 MHz Athlon was beating the 400-500 MHz G4s in everything by a large margin exluding some few things related to Alti-Vec. The G4 is/was an elegant signal processing CPU for embedded applications. But as a personal computer CPU way behind its contemporary competition and stayed that way for 7 long embarrasing years. The G4 may have been faster per Hz than the AMD/Intels but not by 2 to 3 times and they were that much behind clock wise. It Hertz to think about it
But I digress back to the previous post of mine
My point is that Motorolas delays with the 68060 as a reply to the 486 forced Apple to migrate to PPC. Later Motorolas delays with getting G4 on the bus both FSB and CPU wise (pun intended
All the lineups are in good shape no CPU is deperate need of replacement. More and more apps are Intel native. My hope is that Apple in OS 10.6 adress some old outstanding issues in the OS. Having all sounds through the OS instead of having it offloaded like windows have had for many many years, is not a good thing.
The file system HFS was founded when hard disks were optional and the file system handled some hundred of files...
You mean Golden Wonder
Doh!
However, I do more than imply, I claim that the 1200 MHz Athlon was beating the 400-500 MHz G4s in everything by a large margin exluding some few things related to Alti-Vec. The G4 is/was an elegant signal processing CPU for embedded applications. But as a personal computer CPU way behind its contemporary competition and stayed that way for 7 long embarrasing years. The G4 may have been faster per Hz than the AMD/Intels but not by 2 to 3 times and they were that much behind clock wise. It Hertz to think about it
True. The G4 did not evolve as desired by Apple (or their customers), partially due to production failures on Motorola's/Freescale's part, and partially because Freescale lost interest in Apple as a customer.
My point is that Motorolas delays with the 68060 as a reply to the 486 forced Apple to migrate to PPC.
Not true. At that point, Apple had already worked with Motorola and IBM on the PowerPC anyway. Sticking to 68k even longer was never an option.
Later Motorolas delays with getting G4 on the bus both FSB and CPU wise (pun intended
Yes, that's very true. I'm not worried about this delay.
Having all sounds through the OS instead of having it offloaded like windows have had for many many years, is not a good thing.
I'm not sure I understand this.
The file system HFS was founded when hard disks were optional and the file system handled some hundred of files...
That claim is often made but never really proved. Is there evidence that HFS+ is significantly slower at accessing/handling many files than NTFS and comparable file systems are?
With the mac having as good CPUs as any other PC, Apple now can concentrate on making a very good OS instead of having a look out for alternaive CPUs up in the rigg at all times.
Having Win available both in boot camp and Parallels and the game Win 32 API wrapper is also a good thing
The hope of getting FSI enabled graphic cards in the PC and then Mac market is a good thing.
The tough migrations from 68k to PPC and then to Intel have forced Apple to shed a lot of legacy code and that is a very good thing. Compare that to Windows or Mac OS 7.5.5rel2 that could run on anything from a Mac Plus with 8 MHz CPU and optional hard disk to a 350 MHz 9600, there the mac also had a lot of spagetti code
The Ultra Mobile, Super Portable, Mostly Untarnishable Mac Nano Supreme!
Exactly. Besides they shouldn't have much to worry about it's not like other companies really want to run crazy campains for their players at the expo anyways. It was probably at a minimum to begin with.
I don't think the issue is so much the display/sale of competing players. You're right in that no one's going to run a "crazy campaign" at an Apple show.
However, what about companies that sell iPod accessories? If those accessories (or nearly identical ones) will also work for Zune, Apple will want to squelch that kind of information.
I think that's what this issue is really all about. The accessories, not the players themselves.
I don't think the issue is so much the display/sale of competing players. You're right in that no one's going to run a "crazy campaign" at an Apple show.
However, what about companies that sell iPod accessories? If those accessories (or nearly identical ones) will also work for Zune, Apple will want to squelch that kind of information.
I think that's what this issue is really all about. The accessories, not the players themselves.
Ah! I see. Cross compatibility is the rub!