Ryth
Apr 25, 07:35 PM
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
I would wait. Considering Lion is coming out also, you might as well wait for the next refresh which I'm sure will be optimized for Lion.
I would wait. Considering Lion is coming out also, you might as well wait for the next refresh which I'm sure will be optimized for Lion.
![japanese maple bloodgood tree. Japanese Maple n£]]]](http://www.jungleseeds.com/images/AcerBloodgood.JPG "Japanese Maple n£]]]")
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
powermac_daddy
Aug 23, 08:19 PM
nice.... good job.
apple got too much money anyway.
who cares
apple got too much money anyway.
who cares
mondesi43
May 3, 11:47 AM
So where do I buy a TB cable to hook-up my MBP to the new iMac so can transfer files, use the iMac as a second screen, and hook up my drobo to the iMac for storage? Or are all the peripheral and cables coming in summer?
bleaknik
Mar 22, 03:26 PM
Better idea: add an ExpressCard slot so I can put eSATA or USB3 on my iMac. Or you know...put USB3 & eSATA on my iMac for me *hint hint Apple*
Why? Thunderbolt is essentially an external PCI-E port.
Why? Thunderbolt is essentially an external PCI-E port.
maccompaq
Feb 9, 02:38 PM
it's a nice gesture, but anti-virus software on osx is about as useful as tits on a boar.
You are far too generous.
You are far too generous.
true777
Oct 27, 11:09 AM
I am in favor of Greenpeace's "Green My Apple" campaign. For all of Steve Jobs' zen-attitude, vegetarianism, often-proclaimed "do the right thing" stance, and Apple's financial liquidity, there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the change and Apple isn't willing to move in the right direction with their products.
And, as others have pointed out, if other vendors' straying from their booths is tolerated, and Greenpeace is singled out because their message is an uncomfortable truth that could eat away at Apple's image of being the perfect computer company, then that's an outrage. If Greenpeace gets reprimanded, so should every other vendor who strays from their booth.
And, as others have pointed out, if other vendors' straying from their booths is tolerated, and Greenpeace is singled out because their message is an uncomfortable truth that could eat away at Apple's image of being the perfect computer company, then that's an outrage. If Greenpeace gets reprimanded, so should every other vendor who strays from their booth.
xionxiox
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
j_maddison
Sep 26, 11:16 AM
i REALLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY hope its orange...
as the choice of mobile phones they have at the moment is the poorest i have ever seen in the UK.
ive been waiting on a p990i since march.....still dont have it on orange, was told yesterday it could be end of october now.
i am gauranteed a free upgrade on any handset, so come one apple!!
Do you're self a favour and ask for your pac code when the phon is released. A free upgrade is pretty much to be expected, if you dont ask for the pac code their unlikely to give you any other freebies.
You should always ask for the pac code and then wait for their retention team to give you a call back
Jay
as the choice of mobile phones they have at the moment is the poorest i have ever seen in the UK.
ive been waiting on a p990i since march.....still dont have it on orange, was told yesterday it could be end of october now.
i am gauranteed a free upgrade on any handset, so come one apple!!
Do you're self a favour and ask for your pac code when the phon is released. A free upgrade is pretty much to be expected, if you dont ask for the pac code their unlikely to give you any other freebies.
You should always ask for the pac code and then wait for their retention team to give you a call back
Jay
roadbloc
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
When Windows starts to come close to SL in terms of ease of use and functionality let me know ;)
You have clearly never used Windows 7.
Command Shift 4= snap selection
Command Shirt 3= full screen.
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
You have clearly never used Windows 7.
Command Shift 4= snap selection
Command Shirt 3= full screen.
And neither have you.
Oh wait, you're the same person!
kenypowa
Apr 19, 07:45 AM
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
Anyone who is stupid enough to confuse a Galaxy S with an iPhone shouldn't own a smartphone anyway. All they have to do is turn over the freaking phone and notice that big Samsung logo to know it's not an Apple product.
alent1234
Apr 29, 03:22 PM
that was in 2005 when it first came out. by now they are on a revision that costs a lot less to make and they have sold a lot of games and XBL subs to make up for it. back when the 360 first came out it had an attach rate of 8 games, higher than Sony. figure at $10 licensing per game that's $80 per console on average plus XBL. so i don't know if the isuppli numbers are accurate.
a lot of companies in the console market have been doing it like this for years. take a loss the first year or two, sell break even or small profit later in the cycle and make it up on the games. except for nintendo which is doing the opposite. make money early in the cycle and start losing money at the end of the cycle.
2011 the division will probably turn a profit of $3 to $4 billion or so due to kinect. 2010 was also profitable. if the Nokia partnership works out 2012 will be even better.
a lot of companies in the console market have been doing it like this for years. take a loss the first year or two, sell break even or small profit later in the cycle and make it up on the games. except for nintendo which is doing the opposite. make money early in the cycle and start losing money at the end of the cycle.
2011 the division will probably turn a profit of $3 to $4 billion or so due to kinect. 2010 was also profitable. if the Nokia partnership works out 2012 will be even better.
iwannabeaninja
Sep 26, 07:17 AM
Been saying it on the forums forever.
2007 Apple pulls iTunes from Motorola
2008 Apple launches iPhone with Cingular
2007 Apple pulls iTunes from Motorola
2008 Apple launches iPhone with Cingular
mac.rumors
May 1, 06:11 AM
Crap... I just ordered a 27" iMac from store.apple.com Friday morning. It hasn't shipped yet as i did some custom changes. I am going to call in the morning to see if I can hopefully cancel the order. I also purchased a 27" Cinema Display but that has already shipped. And doesn't look like it is in this upgrade round.
If it has not been 'prepared for shipment', you can still cancel the item online.
If it has not been 'prepared for shipment', you can still cancel the item online.
MacFly123
Mar 29, 03:07 PM
2015... This just in, HELL FROZE OVER! LOL!!! :p
BlizzardBomb
Aug 28, 12:21 PM
This Tuesday! This Tuesday!
That would be great! *fingers crossed*
Hmmm... really we shouldn't be getting our hopes up but who cares! :p
That would be great! *fingers crossed*
Hmmm... really we shouldn't be getting our hopes up but who cares! :p
iliketyla
Mar 29, 01:30 PM
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
How is what the older version didn't do relevant?
The point people were trying to make was that Windows 7 is a good operating system, so what does it matter if past versions of Windows didn't have the functionality?
As problems arise, they are addressed. If the problem has been fixed, then give credit where it's due.
How is what the older version didn't do relevant?
The point people were trying to make was that Windows 7 is a good operating system, so what does it matter if past versions of Windows didn't have the functionality?
As problems arise, they are addressed. If the problem has been fixed, then give credit where it's due.
FriarNurgle
Mar 29, 02:11 PM
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria� for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
That's kind of where I was going... but businesses would switch from Blackberrys to Windows Phones. I wouldn't put it past MS to offer some sort of crazy business discount to get companies to change.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria� for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
That's kind of where I was going... but businesses would switch from Blackberrys to Windows Phones. I wouldn't put it past MS to offer some sort of crazy business discount to get companies to change.
Zwhaler
Aug 23, 08:47 PM
Creative's stock up 30% in after-hours trading. The $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but it will certainly help Creative...
Yeah, but at least Apple doesn't have to worry about any more lawsuits
Yeah, but at least Apple doesn't have to worry about any more lawsuits
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:29 PM
Yeah, we all knew this was coming. It will be interesting to see how quickly Apple responds to its competition and follows suit. Hopefully very soon, I'm eager to see what exactly Apple does, i.e. only updates the MBPs, updates the whole MacBook line, updates the Mini as well... :cool:
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
I think there's a better chance of Merom iMacs. We're talking about a system in which they underclock a mobility Radeon x1600 to make it quieter. Conroe makes sense in a regular desktop, but I don�t see it happening with the iMac.
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
I think there's a better chance of Merom iMacs. We're talking about a system in which they underclock a mobility Radeon x1600 to make it quieter. Conroe makes sense in a regular desktop, but I don�t see it happening with the iMac.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 26, 09:47 AM
All I can say is whoever is the provider in Europe, Apple better hurry the hell up and release the damn thing!! :mad:
Russell L
Apr 25, 05:51 PM
I've lusted after the Unibody design ever since it came out just after I got my early 2008 MBP, and I finally caved in this year and got a 17" 2011 MBP. Seemed like the right time. I'm glad I now have what might be the last of the Unibody designs!
al2o3cr
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
Reasonably plausible - by then, Nokia will probably have a dozen suck-phones that are roughly comparable to *today's* phones that'll all run WP7 and sell like hotcakes in the developing world...
caspersoong
May 4, 03:14 AM
I wonder why it takes so much space to house all the iMac hardware... And why the screen has to be so large to fit better processors, etc and the additional ThunderBolt Port.