Maybe it's possible I know something you don't Marvin, it is possible you know.
Quite possible but 'knowledge' means facts not something you say you 'have figured out' and say you are '95% sure about'. There's a degree of irresponsibility when it comes to rumor-mongering from both preachers and believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I never said I did, but that chap pointed over to a thread when he mentioned he bought $40,000 worth. Get real. Ahem, lol.
Of course you didn't, perhaps you are trying to convince other people to buy in the same way that people who report of Steve Jobs' death convince people to sell. If you didn't buy then it begs the question that if you are so sure of your 'knowledge', why haven't you? Is 95% certainty not enough for a shareholder?
How much stock do you already own btw? A few thousand? Given that AAPL dropped by half in 2 months last year, shareholders must be desperate to push it back up.
The last drop in shares happened just after new Mac announcements and hasn't recovered. It coincided with the glossy iMac release exactly. To avoid the same thing, Apple know what they need to do and it's not deliver more of the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Agree with most of your post, except that Quad core cpus will only make into the 24" iMac.
The 20" iMacs should also get the quad core cpus as well, with the possible exception of the entry level iMac.
For $1500, consumers should get a Quad core machine at this time.
I would agree that's certainly how it should be. But Apple could also offer the 3.06GHz chips with the current 20" iMac. They know that displays don't matter to people because you can get an external one so they tie the spec to it so you have no choice but to pay much more.
They've signed a deal with LG so they will have orders for high end display panels that they need to shift. The only way to do this is to make the high end worth the price. Apple's solution to this is to cripple everything below it.
The only consolation is Snow Leopard or maybe not. If it has a March release, Apple could delay hardware for 6-8 weeks so they bundle the machines with it. I suspect they will ship sooner and maybe offer free upgrades for these machines only but no event announced yet.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
I would agree that's certainly how it should be. But Apple could also offer the 3.06GHz chips with the current 20" iMac. They know that displays don't matter to people because you can get an external one so they tie the spec to it so you have no choice but to pay much more.
They've signed a deal with LG so they will have orders for high end display panels that they need to shift. The only way to do this is to make the high end worth the price. Apple's solution to this is to cripple everything below it.
Well time will tell. I certainly wouldn't put it past Apple to simply throw in a faster dual core cpu on the 20" models. But that would be a poor value and I don't see how they would sell them without reducing the prices on those models which isn't Apple's MO.
SL is around the corner. Lets hope that Apple give us a Mac that can grow into SL and harness its capabilities. If not, I'll certainly wait.
Mac sales have benefited to certain extent from the foibles of MS and Vista. Those days appear to coming to an end. Win7 is getting very positive reviews. Simply having cute 'I'm a Mac. I'm a PC' commercials that poke fun at Vista ain't gonna drive sales anymore.
Mac sales have benefited to certain extent from the foibles of MS and Vista. Those days appear to coming to an end. Win7 is getting very positive reviews. Simply having cute 'I'm a Mac. I'm a PC' commercials that poke fun at Vista ain't gonna drive sales anymore.
Amen!
But does Apple know this? And more importantly will they heed this advice?
Apple certainly has the R&D, chip designers and patents to stir things up nicely. But will they ever use them?
So far all they've done is pretty evolutionary with baby steps. No big stirrups. Even the iPhone is in a way just retargeting of existing technology. Multitouch being the one exception.
What can we truly hope to expect? More of the same I'm afraid. With changes only in the details. Like over-engineered 8 hour batteries based on existing tech (rather than risking new battery technology).
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
There are release windows which are better than others. Whether the development of SL is progressed enough to use these windows, we don't know.
Let's find a possible time slot:
Most agree that WWDC is the place when the new iPhone 3.0 will be introduced. Makes sense. Phil Schiller even said the iPhone is on a June release plan.
Does anyone think that SL will be introduced at the same time? Don't think so. Bad marketing.
Summer is usually a dead season for marketing hence July/August is probably out of the question for any major introduction.
Will Apple wait until September for Snow Leopard's introduction? Then they'd go head-to-head with Windows 7. Not good either.
So the only logical slot left is April or May. Which makes sense for WWDC as well as this would not steal the thunder from the iPhone but still give Apple a chance to run all sessions on SL they want (as it is fully introduced).
With SL being optimized for multi-cores I wouldn't be surprised to see new Mac Pros with 16 threads (dual quad-core i7 chips) introduced alongside to show-case SL.
From this deduction April/May makes the most sense for SL's introduction.
And I'm sure Apple aims for that as well.
Whether they can deliver? I'm certain even they don't know for sure.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
It is widely acknowledged that Vista problems helped to boost Apple switchers. But the history is not going to repeat itself. And this is not a matter how Snow Leopard stacks against Windows 7. The main reasoning behind switching after Vista release was as follows:
Vista requires new harware anyway
Vista brings driver incompatibility anyway
For an XP user, Vista requires a learning curve anyway
None of this will be true for the Vista - Windows 7 upgrade path. For the XP users, those who decided to skip Vista or were waiting for service pack 1/2 are now anticipating Windows 7. Microsoft failed badly with Vista, bad timing including, but are making a pretty good job at promoting Windows 7, good timing including.
Note that the percent of switchers compared to the new mac users might be large, but the percent of users compared to the XP user base is small. In other words, the number of switchers N is much larger percent from the mac users M, than from the Windows XP users 10M.
As far as the majority of the reviews are considered, WIndows 7 is represented as a Giant Step Forward. I don't believe this is the case. I mean, significant improvement at best. But good job for Microsoft in this department as well.
I would wager the far majority of people buying 20" iMac are not rendering 3D images or doing scientific computation. Quad core does little to benefit surfing the internet, word processing, or writing emails. Faster dual processors are more likely to speed some of the basic tasks of the average computer user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Well time will tell. I certainly wouldn't put it past Apple to simply throw in a faster dual core cpu on the 20" models. But that would be a poor value and I don't see how they would sell them without reducing the prices on those models which isn't Apple's MO.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
It is widely acknowledged that Vista problems helped to boost Apple switchers. But the history is not going to repeat itself. And this is not a matter how Snow Leopard stacks against Windows 7. The main reasoning behind switching after Vista release was as follows:
Vista requires new harware anyway
Vista brings driver incompatibility anyway
For an XP user, Vista requires a learning curve anyway
None of this will be true for the Vista - Windows 7 upgrade path. For the XP users, those who decided to skip Vista or were waiting for service pack 1/2 are now anticipating Windows 7. Microsoft failed badly with Vista, bad timing including, but are making a pretty good job at promoting Windows 7, good timing including.
Note that the percent of switchers compared to the new mac users might be large, but the percent of users compared to the XP user base is small. In other words, the number of switchers N is much larger percent from the mac users M, than from the Windows XP users 10M.
As far as the majority of the reviews are considered, WIndows 7 is represented as a Giant Step Forward. I don't believe this is the case. I mean, significant improvement at best. But good job for Microsoft in this department as well.
But does Apple know this? And more importantly will they heed this advice?
Apple certainly has the R&D, chip designers and patents to stir things up nicely. But will they ever use them? So far all they've done is pretty evolutionary with baby steps. No big stirrups. Even the iPhone is in a way just retargeting of existing technology. Multitouch being the one exception.
What exactly do you expect Apple to do? Apple has gotten Intel and Nvidia to develop specialized chips and chipsets to keep their machines ahead of the technology curve. Apple can only work with technology that is currently available, currently works without problems, and isn't prohibitively expensive.
Quote:
What can we truly hope to expect? More of the same I'm afraid. With changes only in the details. Like over-engineered 8 hour batteries based on existing tech (rather than risking new battery technology).
Exactly what new battery technology are you talking about? Who else uses this battery technology? Apple knows all of the battery technology options available and have likely experimented with various options. Ultimately they have to use what is available and isn't prohibitively expensive.
How do you define over engineered 8 hour battery, no one else offers an integrated 8 hour battery in a 17" notebook as thin and light as the MacBook Pro.
I would wager the far majority of people buying 20" iMac are not rendering 3D images or doing scientific computation. Quad core does little to benefit surfing the internet, word processing, or writing emails.
Why are they putting dual core cpus in those machines if that's all the average buyer of the 20" iMac does with their Mac? They'd get by fine with a pentium or Atom.
The new iMovie requires more processing power than the old version. I don't know if can leverage the power of a quad core cpu but it could use that processing power to analyze video for stabilization.
If they keep a dual core cpu in the 20" iMac, we'll see how well it does. I predict it will sell poorly. I know where you stand.
Of course you didn't, perhaps you are trying to convince other people to buy in the same way that people who report of Steve Jobs' death convince people to sell. If you didn't buy then it begs the question that if you are so sure of your 'knowledge', why haven't you? Is 95% certainty not enough for a shareholder?
I never said I didn't buy shares either. You have got mixed up somewhere along the way.
Apple can only work with technology that is currently available, currently works without problems, and isn't prohibitively expensive.
No. If it doesn't exist, make it. That's what engineering is about.
The first personal computer didn't exist, computer parts didn't exist. Apple made them, programmed them.
Graphical user interfaces barely existed outside corporate labs. Apple made it available.
This kind of engineering.
Trying something completely new. That hasn't been done before. With all the risks involved.
Apple has enough money in the bank to try a few things and fail a few times. It won't break them.
They just need the will to do it. To be bold. And not do conservative baby steps that consist of refining existing technology, rather than making something completely new.
I'd like to see some sort of update Apple TV with a special app store and GAMES. It would be the perfect multimedia device. It could play shows/movies/music/pictures/games and other apps. For a controller you would use an iPod Touch/iPhone. You could download an app for free that connects to Apple TV and lets you connect with it. It would act as a controller that would change for various games. You could use multi-touch in ways to interact with the game. You could also use the accelerometer for some games. The app would also allow you to show your devices screen on the TV screen. You could directly transfer media between your device and the Apple TV. It would also work as a remote for selecting movies and music. It would have an upgradeable hard drive that would start out as 500GB/1TB. It would have a big place in the gaming market, with the ability to download games right from home and the multi-touch control scheme.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
The problem with realistic timeframes is that we have almost no frame of reference. We just don't know what stage they are at. It's a safer bet to assume later than earlier but without an update on SL progress, we can't know for sure.
Don't know if they will ditch the 32-bit version or double that number like Vista. Then you have to remember that it's still Windows underneath. I don't have massive problems with the OS but things like the registry, system settings, UI mess (no global menu), Windows Explorer (not IE the filesystem browser) are still there.
Windows 7 might be a better Windows but it's still Windows and no unix goodness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBit
So the only logical slot left is April or May. Which makes sense for WWDC as well as this would not steal the thunder from the iPhone but still give Apple a chance to run all sessions on SL they want (as it is fully introduced).
I think May would be too close to the early June WWDC. I am hoping late March/April.
They could release it at WWDC though because the new iphone will have developments from SL too given that it runs OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I would wager the far majority of people buying 20" iMac are not rendering 3D images or doing scientific computation. Quad core does little to benefit surfing the internet, word processing, or writing emails. Faster dual processors are more likely to speed some of the basic tasks of the average computer user.
I wonder which chips they'd use because the prices of the mobile chips haven't dropped that much. The Core 2 Extremes are still pretty high. If they transition to desktop processors, the prices should drop considerably.
For example, the Core 2 Extreme 3.06GHz is $851 but the Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz is just $369. This could mean the iMac would top out at $1699.
The lowest model even with a quad processor would stay around the same price. I doubt they'd go with the 24" across the lineup and drop the 20". I wonder how they will fit a 65W chip into the 20" shell. The 24" at least has some leg room for more advanced cooling.
At this point OS X and a great deal of software has been optimized to use two cores. So their is considerable gain from only using one.
I'm not saying I think Apple should not use quad's across the iMac line. What I am saying is don't think its imperative because it won't offer much improvement for the average computer user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Why are they putting dual core cpus in those machines if that's all the average buyer of the 20" iMac does with their Mac? They'd get by fine with a pentium or Atom.
Comments
Maybe it's possible I know something you don't Marvin, it is possible you know.
Quite possible but 'knowledge' means facts not something you say you 'have figured out' and say you are '95% sure about'. There's a degree of irresponsibility when it comes to rumor-mongering from both preachers and believers.
I never said I did, but that chap pointed over to a thread when he mentioned he bought $40,000 worth. Get real. Ahem, lol.
Of course you didn't, perhaps you are trying to convince other people to buy in the same way that people who report of Steve Jobs' death convince people to sell. If you didn't buy then it begs the question that if you are so sure of your 'knowledge', why haven't you? Is 95% certainty not enough for a shareholder?
How much stock do you already own btw? A few thousand? Given that AAPL dropped by half in 2 months last year, shareholders must be desperate to push it back up.
The last drop in shares happened just after new Mac announcements and hasn't recovered. It coincided with the glossy iMac release exactly. To avoid the same thing, Apple know what they need to do and it's not deliver more of the same.
Agree with most of your post, except that Quad core cpus will only make into the 24" iMac.
The 20" iMacs should also get the quad core cpus as well, with the possible exception of the entry level iMac.
For $1500, consumers should get a Quad core machine at this time.
I would agree that's certainly how it should be. But Apple could also offer the 3.06GHz chips with the current 20" iMac. They know that displays don't matter to people because you can get an external one so they tie the spec to it so you have no choice but to pay much more.
They've signed a deal with LG so they will have orders for high end display panels that they need to shift. The only way to do this is to make the high end worth the price. Apple's solution to this is to cripple everything below it.
Ahem:
The only consolation is Snow Leopard or maybe not. If it has a March release, Apple could delay hardware for 6-8 weeks so they bundle the machines with it. I suspect they will ship sooner and maybe offer free upgrades for these machines only but no event announced yet.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
I would agree that's certainly how it should be. But Apple could also offer the 3.06GHz chips with the current 20" iMac. They know that displays don't matter to people because you can get an external one so they tie the spec to it so you have no choice but to pay much more.
They've signed a deal with LG so they will have orders for high end display panels that they need to shift. The only way to do this is to make the high end worth the price. Apple's solution to this is to cripple everything below it.
Well time will tell. I certainly wouldn't put it past Apple to simply throw in a faster dual core cpu on the 20" models. But that would be a poor value and I don't see how they would sell them without reducing the prices on those models which isn't Apple's MO.
SL is around the corner. Lets hope that Apple give us a Mac that can grow into SL and harness its capabilities. If not, I'll certainly wait.
Mac sales have benefited to certain extent from the foibles of MS and Vista. Those days appear to coming to an end. Win7 is getting very positive reviews. Simply having cute 'I'm a Mac. I'm a PC' commercials that poke fun at Vista ain't gonna drive sales anymore.
Mac sales have benefited to certain extent from the foibles of MS and Vista. Those days appear to coming to an end. Win7 is getting very positive reviews. Simply having cute 'I'm a Mac. I'm a PC' commercials that poke fun at Vista ain't gonna drive sales anymore.
Amen!
But does Apple know this? And more importantly will they heed this advice?
Apple certainly has the R&D, chip designers and patents to stir things up nicely. But will they ever use them?
So far all they've done is pretty evolutionary with baby steps. No big stirrups. Even the iPhone is in a way just retargeting of existing technology. Multitouch being the one exception.
What can we truly hope to expect? More of the same I'm afraid. With changes only in the details. Like over-engineered 8 hour batteries based on existing tech (rather than risking new battery technology).
But there's always hope for a nice surprise...
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
There are release windows which are better than others. Whether the development of SL is progressed enough to use these windows, we don't know.
Let's find a possible time slot:
Most agree that WWDC is the place when the new iPhone 3.0 will be introduced. Makes sense. Phil Schiller even said the iPhone is on a June release plan.
Does anyone think that SL will be introduced at the same time? Don't think so. Bad marketing.
Summer is usually a dead season for marketing hence July/August is probably out of the question for any major introduction.
Will Apple wait until September for Snow Leopard's introduction? Then they'd go head-to-head with Windows 7. Not good either.
So the only logical slot left is April or May. Which makes sense for WWDC as well as this would not steal the thunder from the iPhone but still give Apple a chance to run all sessions on SL they want (as it is fully introduced).
With SL being optimized for multi-cores I wouldn't be surprised to see new Mac Pros with 16 threads (dual quad-core i7 chips) introduced alongside to show-case SL.
From this deduction April/May makes the most sense for SL's introduction.
And I'm sure Apple aims for that as well.
Whether they can deliver? I'm certain even they don't know for sure.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
It is widely acknowledged that Vista problems helped to boost Apple switchers. But the history is not going to repeat itself. And this is not a matter how Snow Leopard stacks against Windows 7. The main reasoning behind switching after Vista release was as follows:
- Vista requires new harware anyway
- Vista brings driver incompatibility anyway
- For an XP user, Vista requires a learning curve anyway
None of this will be true for the Vista - Windows 7 upgrade path. For the XP users, those who decided to skip Vista or were waiting for service pack 1/2 are now anticipating Windows 7. Microsoft failed badly with Vista, bad timing including, but are making a pretty good job at promoting Windows 7, good timing including.Note that the percent of switchers compared to the new mac users might be large, but the percent of users compared to the XP user base is small. In other words, the number of switchers N is much larger percent from the mac users M, than from the Windows XP users 10M.
As far as the majority of the reviews are considered, WIndows 7 is represented as a Giant Step Forward. I don't believe this is the case. I mean, significant improvement at best. But good job for Microsoft in this department as well.
Well time will tell. I certainly wouldn't put it past Apple to simply throw in a faster dual core cpu on the 20" models. But that would be a poor value and I don't see how they would sell them without reducing the prices on those models which isn't Apple's MO.
.
Here's a question: when is Windows 7 coming out? While Apple only wants to stick to its schedule and ignore everyone else's, it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista? Possibly, but if they put it out first and it doesn't totally suck, I could see a lot of potential switchers going back to MS.
Seriously, I know we all will stick with Mac, but if there's a shiny new Windows OS ("now even more like Mac OSX!!"), no new Mac OS, and the desktops are still sporting their ancient specs, then Apple could really be shooting itself in the foot. After all, by neglecting the desktops, they've ticked off Mac fanatics like us, while trying to get new users instead - if they lose this group it could possibly be one of the worst moments in the second Jobs era.
It is widely acknowledged that Vista problems helped to boost Apple switchers. But the history is not going to repeat itself. And this is not a matter how Snow Leopard stacks against Windows 7. The main reasoning behind switching after Vista release was as follows:
- Vista requires new harware anyway
- Vista brings driver incompatibility anyway
- For an XP user, Vista requires a learning curve anyway
None of this will be true for the Vista - Windows 7 upgrade path. For the XP users, those who decided to skip Vista or were waiting for service pack 1/2 are now anticipating Windows 7. Microsoft failed badly with Vista, bad timing including, but are making a pretty good job at promoting Windows 7, good timing including.Note that the percent of switchers compared to the new mac users might be large, but the percent of users compared to the XP user base is small. In other words, the number of switchers N is much larger percent from the mac users M, than from the Windows XP users 10M.
As far as the majority of the reviews are considered, WIndows 7 is represented as a Giant Step Forward. I don't believe this is the case. I mean, significant improvement at best. But good job for Microsoft in this department as well.
Amen!
But does Apple know this? And more importantly will they heed this advice?
Apple certainly has the R&D, chip designers and patents to stir things up nicely. But will they ever use them? So far all they've done is pretty evolutionary with baby steps. No big stirrups. Even the iPhone is in a way just retargeting of existing technology. Multitouch being the one exception.
What exactly do you expect Apple to do? Apple has gotten Intel and Nvidia to develop specialized chips and chipsets to keep their machines ahead of the technology curve. Apple can only work with technology that is currently available, currently works without problems, and isn't prohibitively expensive.
What can we truly hope to expect? More of the same I'm afraid. With changes only in the details. Like over-engineered 8 hour batteries based on existing tech (rather than risking new battery technology).
Exactly what new battery technology are you talking about? Who else uses this battery technology? Apple knows all of the battery technology options available and have likely experimented with various options. Ultimately they have to use what is available and isn't prohibitively expensive.
How do you define over engineered 8 hour battery, no one else offers an integrated 8 hour battery in a 17" notebook as thin and light as the MacBook Pro.
I would wager the far majority of people buying 20" iMac are not rendering 3D images or doing scientific computation. Quad core does little to benefit surfing the internet, word processing, or writing emails.
Why are they putting dual core cpus in those machines if that's all the average buyer of the 20" iMac does with their Mac? They'd get by fine with a pentium or Atom.
The new iMovie requires more processing power than the old version. I don't know if can leverage the power of a quad core cpu but it could use that processing power to analyze video for stabilization.
If they keep a dual core cpu in the 20" iMac, we'll see how well it does. I predict it will sell poorly. I know where you stand.
Of course you didn't, perhaps you are trying to convince other people to buy in the same way that people who report of Steve Jobs' death convince people to sell. If you didn't buy then it begs the question that if you are so sure of your 'knowledge', why haven't you? Is 95% certainty not enough for a shareholder?
I never said I didn't buy shares either. You have got mixed up somewhere along the way.
What exactly do you expect Apple to do? [...]
Apple can only work with technology that is currently available, currently works without problems, and isn't prohibitively expensive.
No. If it doesn't exist, make it. That's what engineering is about.
The first personal computer didn't exist, computer parts didn't exist. Apple made them, programmed them.
Graphical user interfaces barely existed outside corporate labs. Apple made it available.
This kind of engineering.
Trying something completely new. That hasn't been done before. With all the risks involved.
Apple has enough money in the bank to try a few things and fail a few times. It won't break them.
They just need the will to do it. To be bold. And not do conservative baby steps that consist of refining existing technology, rather than making something completely new.
Regarding battery technologies:
silver-zinc as done by zpower
fuel cells as done by Toshiba
solar panels integrated into LCD as done by Apple
And to those critics who say that these technologies are not ready for prime time I'd say, make it ready!
That's what engineering is about.
I never said I didn't buy shares either. You have got mixed up somewhere along the way.
Yes, you never answered my question re whether you bought shares.
And with a lack of response on your side Marvin probably assumed you didn't (which is probably a fair enough assumption).
So at least now we know. And you seem to put your money where your 95% estimate is.
Don't hold your breath for Snow Leopard release. If you don't want to break-up with the reality June is the most optimistic timeframe. September - October sounds more realistic for me.
The problem with realistic timeframes is that we have almost no frame of reference. We just don't know what stage they are at. It's a safer bet to assume later than earlier but without an update on SL progress, we can't know for sure.
OpenCL is at the usable stage:
http://sa08.idav.ucdavis.edu/NVIDIA....emo.Harris.pdf
so presumably that part of SL is ready (wonder if they used SL to build it) but they will likely have to do developer betas as the release approaches.
it seems to me that Snow Leopard would want to be out before Windows 7. It seems to be getting better reviews than Vista. Could it flop like Vista?
At least one thing has stayed the same:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/w...e-has-come-to/
Don't know if they will ditch the 32-bit version or double that number like Vista. Then you have to remember that it's still Windows underneath. I don't have massive problems with the OS but things like the registry, system settings, UI mess (no global menu), Windows Explorer (not IE the filesystem browser) are still there.
Windows 7 might be a better Windows but it's still Windows and no unix goodness.
So the only logical slot left is April or May. Which makes sense for WWDC as well as this would not steal the thunder from the iPhone but still give Apple a chance to run all sessions on SL they want (as it is fully introduced).
I think May would be too close to the early June WWDC. I am hoping late March/April.
They could release it at WWDC though because the new iphone will have developments from SL too given that it runs OS X.
I would wager the far majority of people buying 20" iMac are not rendering 3D images or doing scientific computation. Quad core does little to benefit surfing the internet, word processing, or writing emails. Faster dual processors are more likely to speed some of the basic tasks of the average computer user.
I wonder which chips they'd use because the prices of the mobile chips haven't dropped that much. The Core 2 Extremes are still pretty high. If they transition to desktop processors, the prices should drop considerably.
For example, the Core 2 Extreme 3.06GHz is $851 but the Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz is just $369. This could mean the iMac would top out at $1699.
The lowest model even with a quad processor would stay around the same price. I doubt they'd go with the 24" across the lineup and drop the 20". I wonder how they will fit a 65W chip into the 20" shell. The 24" at least has some leg room for more advanced cooling.
Yes, you never answered my question re whether you bought shares.
And with a lack of response on your side Marvin probably assumed you didn't (which is probably a fair enough assumption).
So at least now we know. And you seem to put your money where your 95% estimate is.
I never said I did either
And btw, assumption is the mother of all....
I never said I did either
I know. And I never said you did. I just said 'you seem to'.
Care to elaborate or shall this riddle in the dark remain lingering in the mist of uncertainty for all eternity...
NONE OF US CARE!
I'm not saying I think Apple should not use quad's across the iMac line. What I am saying is don't think its imperative because it won't offer much improvement for the average computer user.
Why are they putting dual core cpus in those machines if that's all the average buyer of the 20" iMac does with their Mac? They'd get by fine with a pentium or Atom.