kalsta
May 6, 12:11 PM
If you told the average American male that his 5 inch penis was 13 centimeters, we'd be on the metric system a week from Thursday.
Can't argue with that logic. :D
Can't argue with that logic. :D
SteveRichardson
Aug 2, 11:30 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
... with a 70% chance that at least one of the other Mac models could see a speed bump with use of the recently released Core 2 Duo processor...
Does he speculate there is a 100% chance that a current mac model will see a speed increase with a 70% chance that another model will see an increase as well, or that there is a 70% chance that one current model will see an increase with some unknown chance of another seeing an increase as well?
This could have been worded better.
... with a 70% chance that at least one of the other Mac models could see a speed bump with use of the recently released Core 2 Duo processor...
Does he speculate there is a 100% chance that a current mac model will see a speed increase with a 70% chance that another model will see an increase as well, or that there is a 70% chance that one current model will see an increase with some unknown chance of another seeing an increase as well?
This could have been worded better.
aznguyen316
May 6, 04:25 AM
No Intel, no care.
bassfingers
Apr 22, 12:14 PM
Unless basic necessities were exempt, it would hurt the poor more as they spend a far greater percentage of their income on necessities than the rich. It also places a greater burden on small business since they are acting like tax collectors but no greater than it does in states with sales taxes already assuming the taxes are harmonized.
good point, I suppose it would increase taxes on the poor. and of course I see no benefit to that.
Surely finding a way to exempt the poor from that would be less complicated the current system.
Also, perhaps the necessary % would be less than expected bc normal people wouldn't be able to skate around taxation.
I'm not saying that this should be a primary political focus, but I believe it would be a nice thing to consider once government spending and overreach is under control and the national debt is less scary
good point, I suppose it would increase taxes on the poor. and of course I see no benefit to that.
Surely finding a way to exempt the poor from that would be less complicated the current system.
Also, perhaps the necessary % would be less than expected bc normal people wouldn't be able to skate around taxation.
I'm not saying that this should be a primary political focus, but I believe it would be a nice thing to consider once government spending and overreach is under control and the national debt is less scary
nuckinfutz
May 7, 08:00 PM
We disagree, but I'll guess we'll find out in a month.
Good info. Thanks. Any link you can provide with this info all in one spot?
Best link i've found is
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100222/that�s-apple�s-new-data-center-where�s-the-giant-glass-cube/
&
http://www.cultofmac.com/interview-apples-gigantic-new-data-center-hints-at-cloud-computing/14680
salient quote from Rich Miller of Data Center Knowledge
Dark-art
Dark Fantasy CG Artworks HD
temari poster dark fantasy
wallpaper dark fantasy.
Wallpaper image: Dark Gift,
Dark Alien Fantasy Wallpaper
wallpaper dark fantasy.
Tags: blue, dark, fantasy,
Dark Fantasy Wallpapers
Dark City Fantasy Art Scenery
Dark Gothic Wallpapers
Horror Woman Wallpaper
Dark Fantasy CG Artworks HD
monsters and dark fantasy
Good info. Thanks. Any link you can provide with this info all in one spot?
Best link i've found is
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100222/that�s-apple�s-new-data-center-where�s-the-giant-glass-cube/
&
http://www.cultofmac.com/interview-apples-gigantic-new-data-center-hints-at-cloud-computing/14680
salient quote from Rich Miller of Data Center Knowledge
Steven in VA
May 8, 11:19 PM
Didn't somebody already point out the family account bargain?
$149 for 5 accounts; only 30 bucks per account per year seems like a good deal for us. Even though our kids are grown they still like having it. And the 10GB storage on the sub-accounts is still big enough to be useful.
But I just got the email notice that mine/ours is just about to renew, too. To have it become free for new users in a week, or a month, even, would be somewhat of a bite . . .
$149 for 5 accounts; only 30 bucks per account per year seems like a good deal for us. Even though our kids are grown they still like having it. And the 10GB storage on the sub-accounts is still big enough to be useful.
But I just got the email notice that mine/ours is just about to renew, too. To have it become free for new users in a week, or a month, even, would be somewhat of a bite . . .
OhEsTen
Jul 30, 02:09 PM
Yeah tell me about it.
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
....Your left nut, your firstborn child and a small goat.
I hate verizon so much....that I began hating James Earl Jones simply for the fact he was their spokesman for so long...
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
....Your left nut, your firstborn child and a small goat.
I hate verizon so much....that I began hating James Earl Jones simply for the fact he was their spokesman for so long...
satkin2
Apr 20, 02:51 AM
What real difference would a larger screen make, it's half an inch at best, barely any difference.
I really can't see what could be gained from doing this, other than being in line with the competitions screen sizes. It would have an impact on the resolution and thus affect all apps.
Would increasing the screen size really enhance the product if it compromised the ecosystem upon which it is so tightly engrained in?
I really can't see what could be gained from doing this, other than being in line with the competitions screen sizes. It would have an impact on the resolution and thus affect all apps.
Would increasing the screen size really enhance the product if it compromised the ecosystem upon which it is so tightly engrained in?
adbe
Apr 5, 02:50 PM
Every time something like this goes down I'm reminded of the original 1984 Apple ad campaign.
Oh how things have changed.
Apple is now BIG BROTHER with a vengeance.
Bloody lame :mad:
With all our dumb laws there really should be a law that precludes bullies like Apple from using these strong arm tactics.
Apple really have got way too big for their boots.
Please read the damn article *before* posting.
Oh how things have changed.
Apple is now BIG BROTHER with a vengeance.
Bloody lame :mad:
With all our dumb laws there really should be a law that precludes bullies like Apple from using these strong arm tactics.
Apple really have got way too big for their boots.
Please read the damn article *before* posting.
mcrain
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
That is a fair point.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
munkery
Nov 2, 06:22 PM
You also have to be careful to choose an anti-virus software that requires superuser privileges as little as possible because they receive user defined inputs, often run with elevated privileges, and can be the source of the most critical exploits (remote root).
For example, http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/14818/
For example, http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/14818/
ptaylor874
Nov 3, 10:11 AM
DOH - Not sure how this double posted - I wrote it and after submitting it I had to sign back in. Looks like my session timed out...
itcheroni
Apr 18, 06:51 PM
Yet you haven't convinced many here. Doesn't that indicate that perhaps you need to address it again, and perhaps find other ways to illustrate your point? It's not like I'm unwilling to be convinced. I just haven't heard a good reason to accept your argument.
Well, if you guys agreed with me then I would have to rethink my position. :D
It's kind of a prerequisite for a collapse that 99% of the population is unprepared.
Well, if you guys agreed with me then I would have to rethink my position. :D
It's kind of a prerequisite for a collapse that 99% of the population is unprepared.
gnasher729
Apr 9, 05:49 PM
Depends on how you solve it, your answer is either 288 or 2.
Nothing is missing in the equation - no math symbol is missing between 2 and (9+3), so solve it as is.
Now, cast your vote! :)
Vote for "Undecidable because of the rubbish typography".
Nothing is missing in the equation - no math symbol is missing between 2 and (9+3), so solve it as is.
Now, cast your vote! :)
Vote for "Undecidable because of the rubbish typography".
killr_b
Aug 4, 11:40 PM
Actually every weekend in Oz is about eating (BBQ) drinking (VB) and watching football (actualy... rugby, aussie rules, and cricket)
(i must say that i do like american football)
:D so you could say that we celebrate thxgiving 52 times per year
Actually you were missinformed.
Thanksgiving is about putting up with the rest of your family (in-laws) just for one night so you can borrow money from them (father-in-law) the rest of the year.:D
The other 51 weeks are for exactly what you said, and waiting 'till next tuesday...:D
I for one can't sleep until monday. It's like Disneyland but can be delivered to my door... and watched on the web. Whoa... I better put this Kool-aid back... I may hurt myself with excitment. Is that a condition?
Like Meromonia, or Woodcrestilization of the the 'puter?:D
(i must say that i do like american football)
:D so you could say that we celebrate thxgiving 52 times per year
Actually you were missinformed.
Thanksgiving is about putting up with the rest of your family (in-laws) just for one night so you can borrow money from them (father-in-law) the rest of the year.:D
The other 51 weeks are for exactly what you said, and waiting 'till next tuesday...:D
I for one can't sleep until monday. It's like Disneyland but can be delivered to my door... and watched on the web. Whoa... I better put this Kool-aid back... I may hurt myself with excitment. Is that a condition?
Like Meromonia, or Woodcrestilization of the the 'puter?:D
macman4291
Jul 24, 12:39 AM
No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Would it be worth it rolling over my 17 in macbook pro, w/ a 2.16 core duo to a macbook pro w/ merom chip and other new attributes. Would there be a significant difference in speed , ect. that would make it worth it. , and if so, what would i do about my registered applecare protection plan?
George Carlin
Apr 7, 08:11 PM
I don't know if I buy this whole shortage thing.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
Lg and Samsung both are completing multi billion $ plants mid 2011 for OLED panels that next gen iPhones and iPad's will use - Apple has already ordered over $7 billion $ of production to run on these lines.
If there is such a big shortage, why aren't people/businesses creating more production plants and capitalizing on the demand (which is only getting started from the looks of it). Where there is serious demand there is serious $$$ to be made!
It seems like basic economics to me but I've been wrong before...
Lg and Samsung both are completing multi billion $ plants mid 2011 for OLED panels that next gen iPhones and iPad's will use - Apple has already ordered over $7 billion $ of production to run on these lines.
rtdunham
Nov 22, 10:38 AM
It would be fun to speculate what features Apple brings to the iPhone that could revolutionize the cell phone industry? My guess is 1) ease of use in updating contacts, calendar, emails 2) iPod music integration 3) high quality 640x480 mpeg4 videos and 4) leveraging in flash memory pricing
Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.
But I'm guessing a slick phone that made it easy to have one's songs, contacts, and calendar always at hand would be a major force in the "Switch" campaign as well. Imagine if the phone/iPod windows users were using in the future could also do all those extra things--from the mac platform. I think a lot would find that irresistable.
Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.
But I'm guessing a slick phone that made it easy to have one's songs, contacts, and calendar always at hand would be a major force in the "Switch" campaign as well. Imagine if the phone/iPod windows users were using in the future could also do all those extra things--from the mac platform. I think a lot would find that irresistable.
coder12
Mar 26, 11:05 PM
I'm not really sure Apple cares about your school district.
Considering that we're one of the first schools in MN to adopt the iPad as a learning tool, and that there are many other schools that are going to wait a year or so to do the same thing, Apple sure does care, they even send representatives and stuff like that from time to time, lucky for us ;)
They might not care enough to change launch dates, but they care somewhat.
Jesus, it's not like the iPads you bought suddenly stop working when a new model comes out.
No, but it would cause an uproar among our faculty. I know they'll keep working, as you do too, but the other students and staff only want the newest and best. We're on a 3 year contract for iPads, and if they announce new iPads the month school starts, the complaints will never end. One year into owning them is a bit more feasible, however.
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
They start coming in next week, supposedly! :) I'm more concerned about how much time it will take to set them up, because we only have 5 technology people at our district, and after I go to college there will only be 4. Thank you economy for leaving us shorthanded :(
that would be your fault for not reading reports
^^^^^
The word report suggests it was well thought out and documented given actual sources. What you mean to say is rumor.
Thanks :)
Considering that we're one of the first schools in MN to adopt the iPad as a learning tool, and that there are many other schools that are going to wait a year or so to do the same thing, Apple sure does care, they even send representatives and stuff like that from time to time, lucky for us ;)
They might not care enough to change launch dates, but they care somewhat.
Jesus, it's not like the iPads you bought suddenly stop working when a new model comes out.
No, but it would cause an uproar among our faculty. I know they'll keep working, as you do too, but the other students and staff only want the newest and best. We're on a 3 year contract for iPads, and if they announce new iPads the month school starts, the complaints will never end. One year into owning them is a bit more feasible, however.
WOAH.
that's a lot of iPads!
That'll take forever to deliver!
They start coming in next week, supposedly! :) I'm more concerned about how much time it will take to set them up, because we only have 5 technology people at our district, and after I go to college there will only be 4. Thank you economy for leaving us shorthanded :(
that would be your fault for not reading reports
^^^^^
The word report suggests it was well thought out and documented given actual sources. What you mean to say is rumor.
Thanks :)
Xian Zhu Xuande
Apr 5, 06:49 PM
That has never been Apples stance ( when ever I read their reasons) its become the "Common wisdom" among many people who are Anti Jailbreaking.
And they argue and argue with nonsense.
First, I'll set aside that I don't care what the 'common wisdom' of people who are anti-jailbreaking is. Second, you failed to actually refute any single point I made in this part of your reply. Third, I wasn't actually talking about unlocking�I was talking about piracy with some other considerations. Apple's chief interest is to protect its platform, and aside from securing revenue, that also means protecting its developers. Unlocking is a point I overlooked, though. It may be in Apple's interest to go out of their way to prevent that as well depending on how they handle it with wireless providers.
Unlocking is legal and many people just can't accept it.
Who cares if it is legal? That's not what this is about.
Why Apple caused this due to control.
I would agree with this statement at face value in the sense that Apple does want to control security of their platform, sales in the App Store, their carrier agreements�but I'll wager you meant it more along the lines of 'schoolyard bully' control, and that would just be ignorant. Whenever Apple (or, for that matter, most any company) does something which upsets some users it is carefully weighed and done only with good reason.
You also point out another Myth created by apple, the "Quality of product" myth. They have to control the product to provide quality. So far I can name 10's to 100's of times Apple has failed to provide such good tight control on the quality of their products, from:
Updates to IOS that crash or disable basic functioning of the device to
Apps in apple's own App store that either violate peoples information and bank accounts to apps that simply do not work and people paid money for them. The Iphone antenna, yes these are just the examples I can quickly post.
I can prove apple is delinquent in its stewardship of "Quality" Apple has a great ability to be teflon company with Steve Jobs getting on stage and exclaiming the problem is never Apple its always something else. Steve should of ran for president............:rolleyes:
Oh, good, I'm glad you've shared your subjective interpretation of this matter to set me straight. Or not. Apple's quality of product far exceeds virtually anything their competition releases, and that includes nearly all of their product categories. If you expect hardware and software to be released completely bug free you're living in an insane dreamland.
Computers by companies like HP, for example, are on occasion released with serious bugs (drive conflict BSoDs out the box, frequent DOAs, issues like broken audio) but nobody actually reports this. It is because nobody really cares. Customers just return the computers or employees of stores send them back to the company or perform the relevant upgrade (as communicated with the company; the later is frequently the case in stores like Best Buy).
As for phones, competition of iOS (especially Android) frequently comes with incomplete or unstable features and it is fleshed out as the user goes along. It is all a part of Google's development cycle (nothing necessarily wrong with this different approach�some prefer it) or the half-assed way in which some third-parties (e.g. Motorola) treat a device (due to having less control over the platform, and less personal interest in adequately testing the devices�something they can get away with because one generic device does not garner anywhere near as much PR or news as a flagship Apple product).
Rage != Wisdom or Knowledge
And they argue and argue with nonsense.
First, I'll set aside that I don't care what the 'common wisdom' of people who are anti-jailbreaking is. Second, you failed to actually refute any single point I made in this part of your reply. Third, I wasn't actually talking about unlocking�I was talking about piracy with some other considerations. Apple's chief interest is to protect its platform, and aside from securing revenue, that also means protecting its developers. Unlocking is a point I overlooked, though. It may be in Apple's interest to go out of their way to prevent that as well depending on how they handle it with wireless providers.
Unlocking is legal and many people just can't accept it.
Who cares if it is legal? That's not what this is about.
Why Apple caused this due to control.
I would agree with this statement at face value in the sense that Apple does want to control security of their platform, sales in the App Store, their carrier agreements�but I'll wager you meant it more along the lines of 'schoolyard bully' control, and that would just be ignorant. Whenever Apple (or, for that matter, most any company) does something which upsets some users it is carefully weighed and done only with good reason.
You also point out another Myth created by apple, the "Quality of product" myth. They have to control the product to provide quality. So far I can name 10's to 100's of times Apple has failed to provide such good tight control on the quality of their products, from:
Updates to IOS that crash or disable basic functioning of the device to
Apps in apple's own App store that either violate peoples information and bank accounts to apps that simply do not work and people paid money for them. The Iphone antenna, yes these are just the examples I can quickly post.
I can prove apple is delinquent in its stewardship of "Quality" Apple has a great ability to be teflon company with Steve Jobs getting on stage and exclaiming the problem is never Apple its always something else. Steve should of ran for president............:rolleyes:
Oh, good, I'm glad you've shared your subjective interpretation of this matter to set me straight. Or not. Apple's quality of product far exceeds virtually anything their competition releases, and that includes nearly all of their product categories. If you expect hardware and software to be released completely bug free you're living in an insane dreamland.
Computers by companies like HP, for example, are on occasion released with serious bugs (drive conflict BSoDs out the box, frequent DOAs, issues like broken audio) but nobody actually reports this. It is because nobody really cares. Customers just return the computers or employees of stores send them back to the company or perform the relevant upgrade (as communicated with the company; the later is frequently the case in stores like Best Buy).
As for phones, competition of iOS (especially Android) frequently comes with incomplete or unstable features and it is fleshed out as the user goes along. It is all a part of Google's development cycle (nothing necessarily wrong with this different approach�some prefer it) or the half-assed way in which some third-parties (e.g. Motorola) treat a device (due to having less control over the platform, and less personal interest in adequately testing the devices�something they can get away with because one generic device does not garner anywhere near as much PR or news as a flagship Apple product).
Rage != Wisdom or Knowledge
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
URFloorMatt
Apr 26, 02:13 PM
Some will be bothered about IOS not being the most dominant. I personally don't care, I just want the best mobile OS.
iOS is neither, at the moment. I suppose that might change with iOS 5.0. I certainly hope it does. But with it looking like Apple is phoning in the iPhone 5th gen, I suspect these numbers will be crushing a year from now.
I suspect by that time Android will hold fully 50% marketshare.
iOS is neither, at the moment. I suppose that might change with iOS 5.0. I certainly hope it does. But with it looking like Apple is phoning in the iPhone 5th gen, I suspect these numbers will be crushing a year from now.
I suspect by that time Android will hold fully 50% marketshare.
hotrock3
Mar 30, 10:55 AM
Anyone who needs to quote wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to contribute!
Now thats a FACT!
That seems quite rude. Wikipedia happens to have a wealth of base level knowledge. I understand that one should not cite it when doing in depth research but when looking for general knowledge it is a great source.
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
Now thats a FACT!
That seems quite rude. Wikipedia happens to have a wealth of base level knowledge. I understand that one should not cite it when doing in depth research but when looking for general knowledge it is a great source.
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
Rocketman
May 7, 07:15 PM
You make it sound like Google making money is a bad thing. The reason so many people use Google is because they don't mind advertisements. Also, people who use Google's services are no more "minions" than Apple users, they just use what they feel is best.
Rocketman: "On behalf of all Google stockholders worldwide, thank you for being one of our minions."
I make it sound like being a stockholder is a good thing.
I make it sound like Google stockholders having minions is a good thing.
I do not make it sound like Google making money is a bad thing because, obvious to everyone but you, I said, "On behalf of all Google stockholders."
All service users are minions. They "opt-in". There's another whole can of worms for both Apple and Google!
Truism: The more you pay the more it is worth.
Proof: The more you choose to pay the more it is worth to you.
It applies to iPad and Mac purchasers, Google ad buyers and all things at all times.
Rocketman
Rocketman: "On behalf of all Google stockholders worldwide, thank you for being one of our minions."
I make it sound like being a stockholder is a good thing.
I make it sound like Google stockholders having minions is a good thing.
I do not make it sound like Google making money is a bad thing because, obvious to everyone but you, I said, "On behalf of all Google stockholders."
All service users are minions. They "opt-in". There's another whole can of worms for both Apple and Google!
Truism: The more you pay the more it is worth.
Proof: The more you choose to pay the more it is worth to you.
It applies to iPad and Mac purchasers, Google ad buyers and all things at all times.
Rocketman