Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
Don Kosak
May 2, 05:20 PM
I wonder if this means MacOS will end up with iOS-style "multi-tasking."
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
odyssey924
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
DeSnousa
Apr 13, 11:59 PM
What computers do you have operating to get those points? You must be an IT admin or something surely they are not your computers?
Link2999
Sep 11, 05:55 PM
Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmI98mNZEM
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
kasei
Sep 6, 05:30 PM
It looks like I'm going to have to buy one of these and hook it up to my entertainment system. Good by clunky old DVDs and hello DVD library on a Mac Mini.
Irishman
Apr 20, 07:32 AM
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.5 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.5 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
iberroa
Apr 3, 02:08 AM
beautiful... :apple:
milo
Sep 6, 01:45 PM
Terrified to see that my MBP's 1.83 Ghz Core Duo is now in Apple's lowest line of computers... It does what I need it to, but it must be worth half the value it was 6 months ago ($1,999.99). Even more terrified that my ex got a black MB that has a better processor then mine. And she only uses it for papers and chatting! :eek:
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
Lowest line? The mini and macbook still both have slower processors than the MBP's.
richardsim7
Mar 24, 05:51 PM
As for the person who said the sound quality sucks, I don't know what the hell they're smoking. Maybe they should stop using the default earphones and buy some decent ones, cause the sound quality is perfect!
That would be me ;)
And yes, the quality does suck. I don't think Shure SCL3's are hardly "low end" headphones. My iPhone sounds miles better than my iPod and it's a real shame, because even my old iPod 5G (Video) sounds better :(
That would be me ;)
And yes, the quality does suck. I don't think Shure SCL3's are hardly "low end" headphones. My iPhone sounds miles better than my iPod and it's a real shame, because even my old iPod 5G (Video) sounds better :(
lordonuthin
Jan 21, 07:19 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 7 million points!
Thanks. points will be down for a bit cuz of power and internet outage caused by too much ICE. I will get everything going again tonight when I get home.
Thanks. points will be down for a bit cuz of power and internet outage caused by too much ICE. I will get everything going again tonight when I get home.
bketchum
Sep 1, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
Small White Car
Mar 22, 03:58 PM
The eMac hung around for a long time.
I'd certainly believe that Apple will keep selling these things online for several years, long after they take them out of the retail stores.
Sales to dance club DJs alone probably makes it worth it to keep making them.
This does make sense. It's also a nice opportunity to add Thunderbolt to a device.
Why?
The big problem with hard drives is that they're slow. How would a faster connection help an iPod Classic in any way?
I'd certainly believe that Apple will keep selling these things online for several years, long after they take them out of the retail stores.
Sales to dance club DJs alone probably makes it worth it to keep making them.
This does make sense. It's also a nice opportunity to add Thunderbolt to a device.
Why?
The big problem with hard drives is that they're slow. How would a faster connection help an iPod Classic in any way?
deputy_doofy
Oct 23, 09:34 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
Sorry to destroy hopes and dreams, but the link is http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intel.html and has been for a while. Somebody has been SLOW to update that old link.
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
Sorry to destroy hopes and dreams, but the link is http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intel.html and has been for a while. Somebody has been SLOW to update that old link.
nemaslov
Mar 22, 06:41 PM
I have 50,000 plus songs in lossless. Mostly from my own CD collection. I know lots of people who want to take ALL there music on the road, to their studios when they travel or are DJs (we don't want to select a portion of our catalogues) . Maybe not a huge audience but a solid one. We just want to play back great music and not have multi touch web capabilities. It's about the music stupid!
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:32 AM
Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:46 AM
I really kinda wish Apple would offer deeper education discounts on the mini. $20 just seems cheap to me. I wonder what the exact margins are on these things.
The 24" iMac can be upgraded to a 7600GT video card. Anyone know how decent that is? What about the x1600?
Wrong thread.
The 24" iMac can be upgraded to a 7600GT video card. Anyone know how decent that is? What about the x1600?
Wrong thread.
jdl8422
Aug 24, 07:53 PM
why is the guy who first posted this rumor buying a bunch of mac minis for a server?
spookje
Jan 1, 05:55 PM
As long they don't announce a MacBook Pro update it's all fine for me. Not sure if I would be shocked when they announce 100 pixels extra screen, or better videocard. But if they are going for a higher resolution like 1920x1080px for a 15" inch edition. Then it will be troublesome for me!
Spanky Deluxe
Nov 27, 01:26 PM
Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
aggri1
May 2, 06:16 PM
Weird. When I ask someone a yes/no question, I expect a yes/no response.
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:17 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
Evangelion
Sep 1, 12:21 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro
so what?*What makes you think that Apple would be earning any less by selling 23" iMacs than Mac Pro's?*It doesn't really matter to Apple that do they earn X million dollars selling Mac Pro's or iMacs, as lomg as they do earn money.
As to this being a home-theater setup... sorry, not gonna fly. While 23" is a big size for a monitor, it's still a lot less than the 32 - 42" televisions people have.
so what?*What makes you think that Apple would be earning any less by selling 23" iMacs than Mac Pro's?*It doesn't really matter to Apple that do they earn X million dollars selling Mac Pro's or iMacs, as lomg as they do earn money.
As to this being a home-theater setup... sorry, not gonna fly. While 23" is a big size for a monitor, it's still a lot less than the 32 - 42" televisions people have.
emotion
Nov 28, 03:58 AM
It's clear Apple need a "consumer" (ie. Dell level) level monitor. It would make sense, as a 17" is seen as too small by most, to release a 19" model (a size that is differentiated from the current line up and in colours that match the white and black consumer models).
Personally I don't see Apple doing this soon despite this rumour so I'm getting one of these to match my black macbook:
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/113148/rb/23351541263
Personally I don't see Apple doing this soon despite this rumour so I'm getting one of these to match my black macbook:
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/113148/rb/23351541263
No comments:
Post a Comment