ClimbingTheLog
Sep 4, 10:18 PM
an airport express that can stream video... could I be any less underwhelmed? :rolleyes:
Only if you understood less about the challenge of streaming NTSC-quality video wirelessly. ;)
Only if you understood less about the challenge of streaming NTSC-quality video wirelessly. ;)
kainjow
Sep 26, 03:54 PM
Anyway, I'm not excited about an iPhone. It would need to give me at least one neat feature for this to be worth drooling over.
i love u baby quotes. i love
i love you aby forever
i love u baby poems. than
i love you aby forever
i love u baby pic. i love you
i love you aby forever and
i love you aby forever. love
Love u baby.
i love you aby forever and
i love you aby forever quotes
i love you aby forever and
i love you aby forever quotes
i love u baby quotes.
i love you aby forever. i
i love you aby forever
i love you aby forever. i
I+love+you+aby+forever+
Reacent Post
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
mKTank
Dec 31, 01:57 AM
Yes, this sticky obtrusive and uninstallable piece of junk that constantly plagues people in the PC world (not to mention it radically slows your machine down. I recently installed Flash player on the PC side and without my permission McAffe was installed....ARGGGHH. Now they want to infect the Mac world....PLEASE NO!
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
jacollins
Apr 20, 12:02 PM
Password protect your phone. Password protect your computer. Nothing has changed.
That forensic software the police has can bypass the password on your phone.
That forensic software the police has can bypass the password on your phone.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:20 AM
Is this a one-time payment to include all future uses?
It seems to be the case, as the agreement resolves "all disputes." I'm sure there is a stipulation that Creative agrees not to pursue patent claims against Apple in the future.
Which is why the whole "Creative won" argument doesn't wash. Considering that iPod will end up generating tens of billions of dollars in future revenue for Apple (on top of the billions it's already made), settling for $100 million is not exactly a sign of Creative dealing from a position of strength.
I mean think about it. Creative is basically claiming Apple stole its goose that lays golden eggs. Apple says "No, we didn't, in fact, you stole our spinning wheel that can spin threads of gold from straw!" They both argue and threaten each other, but in the end Apple offers Creative a little piece of golden eggshell, and Creative is so happy about winning, it tells Apple, "Aww, shucks, thanks for the piece of shell, you can keep the goose!"
I don't think so. :P
Which is why the deal has all the signs of Creative gulping down its pride and accepting a settlement on Apple's terms. Creative accepted because if it didn't, the chances were quite high that it would not be in business a year from now, mainly because Zune will wipe out its ability to sell in a crowded market. At least now, it has a big stick it can use against Microsoft.
In the end, it's a big win for Apple.
It seems to be the case, as the agreement resolves "all disputes." I'm sure there is a stipulation that Creative agrees not to pursue patent claims against Apple in the future.
Which is why the whole "Creative won" argument doesn't wash. Considering that iPod will end up generating tens of billions of dollars in future revenue for Apple (on top of the billions it's already made), settling for $100 million is not exactly a sign of Creative dealing from a position of strength.
I mean think about it. Creative is basically claiming Apple stole its goose that lays golden eggs. Apple says "No, we didn't, in fact, you stole our spinning wheel that can spin threads of gold from straw!" They both argue and threaten each other, but in the end Apple offers Creative a little piece of golden eggshell, and Creative is so happy about winning, it tells Apple, "Aww, shucks, thanks for the piece of shell, you can keep the goose!"
I don't think so. :P
Which is why the deal has all the signs of Creative gulping down its pride and accepting a settlement on Apple's terms. Creative accepted because if it didn't, the chances were quite high that it would not be in business a year from now, mainly because Zune will wipe out its ability to sell in a crowded market. At least now, it has a big stick it can use against Microsoft.
In the end, it's a big win for Apple.
epicwelshman
Aug 31, 11:49 AM
...and 5 years later, with no major innovations since iPod Video, it makes sense that to not only counter Microsoft's Zune, but to maintain their market presence and sales (which is starting to slow), that a major innovation is required. I am NOT sold on portable video as a unique selling point, as no one spends a prolonged period of time looking at small screen devices (unless for gaming or limited web surfing), and I am more inclined to believe Apple will launch something radical that is as innovative as the original iPod. Perhaps with a far more sophisticated OS, a touch screen, some form of wireless capability (WiFi/Bluetooth 2.0) for interdevice media transfer/wireless headphones/broadcast/syncing, proper PDA functionality and the ability to use as a VoIP and/or 2/2.5G/3G phone, either internally or via Bluetooth. The number one selling point will be the touch screen and more advanced OS, allowing it to take on various roles. And if it doesn't, I'm going to make one, so there. (I kid you not!)
If Apple made a new handheld with PDA, video, and audio features based around the iPod innovations... I'm there man, I'd so buy one.
If Apple made a new handheld with PDA, video, and audio features based around the iPod innovations... I'm there man, I'd so buy one.
GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 12:29 PM
Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
addicted44
Apr 25, 02:07 PM
"which is already under development at Quanta in Taiwan"
And I was naive enough to think that Apple developed their cases themselves. And if they don't it means that they do not design any hardware at all.
Ummm...that doesn't mean what you are saying at all.
Apple has stated before, in one of their Keynote videos (possibly the one about the Unibody MBP), that they send their designers to Taiwan, and China, where the factories are actually located, to the designing, so they have a complete feel for the entire life of the product. So they have an idea of what the manufacturing facilities will look like, and have quick/easy access to the raw materials, and can easily test the manufacturing capabilities themselves.
Just because the design might be happening at Quanta (still a rumor) doesn't mean Apple is not doing the designing (if it wasn't their designs, why hasn't anyone else been able to make a unibody laptop yet?).
And I was naive enough to think that Apple developed their cases themselves. And if they don't it means that they do not design any hardware at all.
Ummm...that doesn't mean what you are saying at all.
Apple has stated before, in one of their Keynote videos (possibly the one about the Unibody MBP), that they send their designers to Taiwan, and China, where the factories are actually located, to the designing, so they have a complete feel for the entire life of the product. So they have an idea of what the manufacturing facilities will look like, and have quick/easy access to the raw materials, and can easily test the manufacturing capabilities themselves.
Just because the design might be happening at Quanta (still a rumor) doesn't mean Apple is not doing the designing (if it wasn't their designs, why hasn't anyone else been able to make a unibody laptop yet?).
yodaxl7
Mar 29, 11:57 AM
They are expecting no adoptions of iPhone or android from symbian owners and we would abandon our phones for windows in 4 years. NOT GONNa Happen!!!
longofest
Oct 27, 07:44 AM
An environmental activist group getting a little roudy at an expo? That's impossible!!! :rolleyes:
dmelgar
Mar 23, 05:19 PM
You counter point is just as silly.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
kresh
Sep 14, 08:43 AM
What is it with some of you guys? Does hope spring eternal, or what!
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
Yebot
Aug 31, 12:14 PM
9/12
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 02:08 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Wow, you people...
What do you mean, "you people"
http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg
What do you mean, "you people"
http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg
EagerDragon
Sep 9, 03:06 PM
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
I could be wrong but...I think Manic did hit it on the head. I think some of the hardware is still 32 bits. If the memory address leads are there for 3 Gigs then they are there to the max of 4 Gigs, above that is anyones guess. Yes it is very strange since either slot can take the 2 gig chip.
Obviously the Mac Pro does not have that issue.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
I could be wrong but...I think Manic did hit it on the head. I think some of the hardware is still 32 bits. If the memory address leads are there for 3 Gigs then they are there to the max of 4 Gigs, above that is anyones guess. Yes it is very strange since either slot can take the 2 gig chip.
Obviously the Mac Pro does not have that issue.
Benjy91
Apr 28, 05:05 PM
How Rival companies are run in the eye of a Mac Rumors user.
"Well boys, we beat our personal record in profits this quarter, BUT. Apple managed slightly higher profits than us, you know what this means..."
"Shut down ALL Factories, close all Software Coding centres, fire ALL employees, and give every penny we own to Apple"
"Well boys, we beat our personal record in profits this quarter, BUT. Apple managed slightly higher profits than us, you know what this means..."
"Shut down ALL Factories, close all Software Coding centres, fire ALL employees, and give every penny we own to Apple"
ripfrankwhite
Sep 5, 12:55 PM
30 more shares. and dont be a dick. ;)
Name calling? LOL! :rolleyes:
Name calling? LOL! :rolleyes:
rychencop
Jan 1, 06:08 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular. i also think a company like McAfee has an interests in creating a panic so they can sell more software.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
silentnite
Apr 25, 01:59 PM
It's about time to change it up a bit. Only hoping they get better from here, not all change is good ask iphoto 11 users. Getting a new design right can be a bit tricky.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:55 AM
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
It came directly from VZW executives.
Here is an article from Business Week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-01/verizon-wireless-will-end-unlimited-data-plans-for-iphone.html
First two paragraphs.
It will be there for a while. However, everyone knows what Verizon does best and that is being the most expensive and greedy. They will not allow the unlimited data to continue when no other carrier readily makes it available.
langis.elbasunu
Mar 23, 06:27 PM
also, LOL @ senators caring about an app "saving lives". How many wars are we currently fighting at the moment? How many innocent lives have been lost?
0 comments:
Post a Comment