BC2009
Apr 12, 05:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
Dagless
Aug 12, 05:43 AM
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
Ooo I have that on GT PSP. Can't remember if it's a collectors edition bonus or whatever, but the ultra annoying thing (which I cannot wrap my head around why they would do this) is some cars cannot be transferred to the PS3 version of the game. Despite the PS3 version having the same cars and then some.
daneoni
Apr 6, 07:49 AM
Aperture 4?
kupua
Nov 29, 12:19 AM
No way Jose...hahahahahahahaha
How much did they invest in the development in the iPod. Yah right just as I though, zip. If MS is that stupid, it just shows what leverage they have on the market for their Zune
How much did they invest in the development in the iPod. Yah right just as I though, zip. If MS is that stupid, it just shows what leverage they have on the market for their Zune
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:39 PM
Yeah, like all those trailblazing Android tablets that are 1-2 years ahead of the iPad, right? :rolleyes:
I'm talking PHONE. Wait 2 years or so on the tablets and it'll be the same thing. Apple just got too big of a head start on tablets.
Tony
I'm talking PHONE. Wait 2 years or so on the tablets and it'll be the same thing. Apple just got too big of a head start on tablets.
Tony
fblack
Nov 28, 07:29 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
plinden
Sep 12, 11:00 AM
The folks over at Anandtech have dropped engineering samples of the quad core cloverton into a Mac Pro - http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
and it worked ... all eight cores were recognised.
The rest of the article was interesting too.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:57 PM
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
Hmm.
What about this:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Reports_February_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/3/comScore_Reports_January_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
Hmm.
What about this:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Reports_February_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/3/comScore_Reports_January_2011_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
ksz
Sep 20, 04:11 PM
The only real downside I see is that Intel Macs are unlikely to hold their value anywhere near as well as the PPC line did due to the quicker changes we'll see now.
I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.
I should have been more thorough in my previous reply. What I really like about these frequent updates are the following:
1. The motherboard has socketed processors (except for the laptops).
2. Even though Intel is updating processors every 6 months or so, the motherboard and chipset seem to support the next processor version.
Yonah can be replaced with Merom.
Woodcrest can be replaced with Clovertown.
Your computer does not become obsolete in 6 months. Instead, it gains new life if you decide that you need the new processor.
Every 12 to 18 months or so a new chipset may become necessary. Only then does your computer lose the upgrade potential. If you buy Merom, you may not be able to upgrade to the next processor. Likewise if you buy Clovertown. New chipsets will be required beyond Merom and Clovertown.
In any event, this is based on trailing history of just 1 year. Future events may unfold differently.
I keep systems til they fall apart, pretty much, but there's quite a few on the various forums who say they always buy and sell 2-3 years later to upgrade.
I should have been more thorough in my previous reply. What I really like about these frequent updates are the following:
1. The motherboard has socketed processors (except for the laptops).
2. Even though Intel is updating processors every 6 months or so, the motherboard and chipset seem to support the next processor version.
Yonah can be replaced with Merom.
Woodcrest can be replaced with Clovertown.
Your computer does not become obsolete in 6 months. Instead, it gains new life if you decide that you need the new processor.
Every 12 to 18 months or so a new chipset may become necessary. Only then does your computer lose the upgrade potential. If you buy Merom, you may not be able to upgrade to the next processor. Likewise if you buy Clovertown. New chipsets will be required beyond Merom and Clovertown.
In any event, this is based on trailing history of just 1 year. Future events may unfold differently.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
marksman
Mar 31, 09:04 PM
As an Apple fanboy, I'm disappointed to post this, but Android will continue to win despite the huge fragmentation problem.
Unlike Windoze based computers, cell phone users expect to replace their phones minimally every two years. So for the most part these users just don't care whether the manufacturers bother to upgrade the OS or whether the few apps they've found need to be repurchased.
When they go shopping and see a brand new Android phone running a better OS with more apps than they had before, they will simply buy it. Especially since there will continue to be two for one offers and lots of competition.
Like Apple computers, iPhones will be superbly engineered, but that hasn't mattered in the computer arena and it won't matter in the cell phone arena.
BTW, I expect Apple to eventually command 20% of the world's computer, cell phone, and tablet market with 50% (or more) of the profits, so it's not like Apple won't be successful. It's like combining all of the luxury cars together under one manufacturer.
I disagree because Smartphones have become essentially computers for people, and people much more than ever want to maintain their existence when they upgrade or move on. With the iPhone this is simply easy to just get a new model of iphone and continue on. Crossing from one manufacturer of android to another with a new OS and everything else, I can't believe it is anywhere near as seamless or effortless.
I think mostly what we are seeing in the marketplace now is the android is for people who can't afford an iPhone. Other people mentioned the two for one deals and other things. It is just a marketplace where android based phones are more affordable and accessible to people who don't have as much to spend on a smartphone.
The whole android handset is crazy. Manufacturers make up new models every 3 weeks, Google renames each version of the Android operating system with some silly name... There is no cohesion or continuity in that at all. I think consumers look more for that than ever.
Android has barely been out long enough for most of the normal consumers to be on an upgrade path already and to have to cycle into a new device. Time will tell.
I think people will see a new android handset (although aqain it is confusing with 25 different makers), and expect to be able to just take it home and upgrade it.. But is that how it happens? Because it is like 2 clicks for an iPhone.
Unlike Windoze based computers, cell phone users expect to replace their phones minimally every two years. So for the most part these users just don't care whether the manufacturers bother to upgrade the OS or whether the few apps they've found need to be repurchased.
When they go shopping and see a brand new Android phone running a better OS with more apps than they had before, they will simply buy it. Especially since there will continue to be two for one offers and lots of competition.
Like Apple computers, iPhones will be superbly engineered, but that hasn't mattered in the computer arena and it won't matter in the cell phone arena.
BTW, I expect Apple to eventually command 20% of the world's computer, cell phone, and tablet market with 50% (or more) of the profits, so it's not like Apple won't be successful. It's like combining all of the luxury cars together under one manufacturer.
I disagree because Smartphones have become essentially computers for people, and people much more than ever want to maintain their existence when they upgrade or move on. With the iPhone this is simply easy to just get a new model of iphone and continue on. Crossing from one manufacturer of android to another with a new OS and everything else, I can't believe it is anywhere near as seamless or effortless.
I think mostly what we are seeing in the marketplace now is the android is for people who can't afford an iPhone. Other people mentioned the two for one deals and other things. It is just a marketplace where android based phones are more affordable and accessible to people who don't have as much to spend on a smartphone.
The whole android handset is crazy. Manufacturers make up new models every 3 weeks, Google renames each version of the Android operating system with some silly name... There is no cohesion or continuity in that at all. I think consumers look more for that than ever.
Android has barely been out long enough for most of the normal consumers to be on an upgrade path already and to have to cycle into a new device. Time will tell.
I think people will see a new android handset (although aqain it is confusing with 25 different makers), and expect to be able to just take it home and upgrade it.. But is that how it happens? Because it is like 2 clicks for an iPhone.
Multimedia
Jul 29, 07:03 PM
this would be smart because as of right now the mac book pro doesnt WOW me over the macbook. Do you think the "core 3" will also have the same pin structure as the 2's?Core 3 is in 2009. Many things will be very different by then. You wouldn't want to upgrade a 2006 Mac in 2009.Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.With Santa Rosa to boot!
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.With Santa Rosa to boot!
takao
Nov 17, 07:55 AM
Here's the official release notice from Sony.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
a rather dissapointing car list .. what gives with not a single newer model from VW than 2005 ? hardly any new alfas, no audi a1, a5, a7 ? no fiat 500 abarth ?
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
a rather dissapointing car list .. what gives with not a single newer model from VW than 2005 ? hardly any new alfas, no audi a1, a5, a7 ? no fiat 500 abarth ?
in general having old models instead of new ones at european car makers ? apart of lambo and ferrari few classic cars from european car makers added ?
so they neither added old cars and hardly any new european cars but instead mostly kept the car models from 1998-2004 period ... a big dissapointment
ArchaicRevival
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Epic. Fail.
leekohler
Mar 4, 04:08 PM
Except I was responding to a post that suggested heterosexuals stop having sex...
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
dernhelm
Aug 26, 07:10 PM
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
No kidding. That's getting really tired now. It's the new "first post" carp we used to have to deal with a while back.
No kidding. That's getting really tired now. It's the new "first post" carp we used to have to deal with a while back.
stapler
Sep 12, 11:30 AM
This development isn't surprising, but reassuring nontheless that Apple didn't cripple the expandability of these machines.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:35 AM
I pointed out the Grid layout many times in the other thread and was told that wasn't part of the lawsuit. If it is than Apple isn't just stretching... they are being idiotic.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
Xeem
Aug 15, 12:05 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:42 PM
Even if that were true, so what? Apple Records was not a competitor of Apple Computer. Trademark law allows multiple companies to have the same trademark so long as they don't sell the same type of products in the same location. This is why you can have a 100 companies like "AAA Locksmith, AAA Laundry," etc. Or you can have "Hollywood Video" in Michigan being totally different than "Hollywood Video" everywhere else [interesting story that. I may have the state wrong.]
Only truly "famous" marks (e.g. Coke, McDonalds, etc.) which can be "diluted" by use with other types of products are protected against this sort of thing.
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
Only truly "famous" marks (e.g. Coke, McDonalds, etc.) which can be "diluted" by use with other types of products are protected against this sort of thing.
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Migrated to the new thread.
Eidorian
Jul 15, 05:14 AM
Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.
512ke
Aug 26, 03:57 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512ke
ready2switch
Sep 19, 09:32 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
62% of all statistics are made up to add false weight to the speaker's argument.
:eek:
Unless you have conducted or can site a scientific study calculating exactly how mac users USE their apple machine, stop calling other people annoying and claiming to know exactly how overpowered these systems are for "most" of the users.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
62% of all statistics are made up to add false weight to the speaker's argument.
:eek:
Unless you have conducted or can site a scientific study calculating exactly how mac users USE their apple machine, stop calling other people annoying and claiming to know exactly how overpowered these systems are for "most" of the users.
