quadgirl
Sep 1, 01:07 PM
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:29 PM
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
Evangelion
Aug 26, 10:09 AM
Folks need to be careful when making G5 to Conroe/etc. comparisons....
The PPC 970FX (single core G5 which was in the iMac G5) has a TDP below that of a Conroe.
FX was used in the xServe, and they couldn't get dual-core CPU in there. As soon as they moved to woodcrest, they could replace that 2x G5 with 2x dual-core Woodcrests. Says quite a bit about how hot they run....
The PPC 970FX (single core G5 which was in the iMac G5) has a TDP below that of a Conroe.
FX was used in the xServe, and they couldn't get dual-core CPU in there. As soon as they moved to woodcrest, they could replace that 2x G5 with 2x dual-core Woodcrests. Says quite a bit about how hot they run....
rockthecasbah
Jan 11, 08:40 PM
I don't buy it from just the name alone. I really hope Apple releases a subcompact MacBook Pro, external optical drive and all that good stuff. We don't need this new MacBook regular nonsense.
reel2reel
Apr 12, 09:53 PM
Viewer built into the browser now. Weird but makes sense I guess.
swingerofbirch
Jul 18, 02:34 AM
I think there already are online download rental sites, presumably for WMP a la Windows.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them. I just have them forever.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them. I just have them forever.
slffl
Apr 26, 09:17 PM
OMG you should see how many people here in Seattle refer to all Android phones as 'Droids'. Verizon better start protecting that ***** as it's already become the name for all Android phones for the 'think they know what they are talking about' android fans.
twoodcc
Sep 1, 02:46 PM
can't wait til Sep. 12! :eek:
rdowns
Mar 19, 11:58 AM
That's one possible reason for delaying. More here (http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article973767.ece/British-press-raps-Obama-over-Libya-no-fly-zone-delay).
(FWIW, I don't disagree with you that it's time for other nations to do more)
Editorials, they're like *******s. :D
Many on the right and some on the left here have been all over him for dragging his feet. Murdoch's NY rag said Hillary was the only one who wanted to take military action and it took her 3 weeks to gather enough administration support. Then again, who the hell knows?
(FWIW, I don't disagree with you that it's time for other nations to do more)
Editorials, they're like *******s. :D
Many on the right and some on the left here have been all over him for dragging his feet. Murdoch's NY rag said Hillary was the only one who wanted to take military action and it took her 3 weeks to gather enough administration support. Then again, who the hell knows?
Umbongo
Mar 25, 04:13 PM
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
twoodcc
Mar 18, 09:09 PM
Grats on 6 mil!!
thanks!
Here are monthly stats for our team (http://kakaostats.com/usum.php?u=1628981) designed is kicking some booty! Way to go designed :eek:
Our team stats page (http://kakaostats.com/t.php?t=3446) click in the columns to change the sort
thanks for the links! yes, designed is kicking some butt! i wonder what his times per frame are
E6750 is an older "65nm" core2duo, 2.66 stock. Good to hear about the ppd. Current info at the moment.
GPU: 548p project running at 5319.91 ppd.
CPU: 225p project running at 295.89 ppd.
Might be time to upgrade the cpu...
are you running the SMP client for the CPU? have you got the new SMP2 client?
thanks!
Here are monthly stats for our team (http://kakaostats.com/usum.php?u=1628981) designed is kicking some booty! Way to go designed :eek:
Our team stats page (http://kakaostats.com/t.php?t=3446) click in the columns to change the sort
thanks for the links! yes, designed is kicking some butt! i wonder what his times per frame are
E6750 is an older "65nm" core2duo, 2.66 stock. Good to hear about the ppd. Current info at the moment.
GPU: 548p project running at 5319.91 ppd.
CPU: 225p project running at 295.89 ppd.
Might be time to upgrade the cpu...
are you running the SMP client for the CPU? have you got the new SMP2 client?
SeattleMoose
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
please!!!!:rolleyes:
sochrisash
Jan 12, 09:41 AM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04084.jpg
Heres my current update on my bug.
Bought some speakers that wouldnt fit the door cards so put them in this suitcase I bought at a vw show. Haha, its great :P
Heres my current update on my bug.
Bought some speakers that wouldnt fit the door cards so put them in this suitcase I bought at a vw show. Haha, its great :P
TheBobcat
Nov 29, 03:57 PM
My guess would be too much cost for such a small market. There's not a lot of 1080p content out there and even less 1080p displays. For a first gen device, I think 720p would be good enough. Maybe even 480p if it's cheap enough.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
True, but two things with that. First, 1080p is expanding rapidly, and it would seem unApple to not go all out with supporting an emerging standard.
Second, didn't iTV have an ethernet jack? If it was wired, they could stream whatever they wanted at almost any res if you had a fast enough network.
Maybe it would limit or upconvert if you were wireless only.
Although, in the end it'll probably depend on bandwidth limitations. They never said what protocol they'll be using. Some are assuming 802.11n, but that would limit them to the newest Intel Macs with a firmware upgrade.
True, but two things with that. First, 1080p is expanding rapidly, and it would seem unApple to not go all out with supporting an emerging standard.
Second, didn't iTV have an ethernet jack? If it was wired, they could stream whatever they wanted at almost any res if you had a fast enough network.
Maybe it would limit or upconvert if you were wireless only.
brianus
Sep 1, 02:59 PM
This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
Uh, no, it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite. Focus on the fact that they're upping the display size to just-below-pro territory and not that they're keeping a laptop processor and you'll see.
Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.
...yes, for many, many years now. It has intentionally not filled the gap. All signs point to it continuing to intentionally not fill the gap.
It all seems pretty obvious.
...that it's what you want, not what Apple will do.
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.
Exactly. It's not like they can go get a more configurable Mac from another company, either. Plus, remember that Apple had all those overlapping products in the bad old days before you-know-who, Mr. consumer/pro/desktop/notebook grid came back on board.
wmmk
Jul 13, 11:02 PM
Will I be able to get a reasonably priced apple laptop with merom, 802.11n, blueray burner, possibly HD, and leopard (or whatever 10.6 is called) in late 2007 or early 2008?
lyzardking
May 1, 07:19 PM
congrats to lyzardking for 7 million points!
i see your output is up! care to share what machines you got folding?
one 08 MP 2.8 dual quad
two 09 MP 2.26 dual quads
I finally got inCrease to push my key to F@H, although it looks like one (one of the newer PMs) isn't getting the bonus... I'll have to check when I get back.
I could never get the Console one to work right....
I just saw that my user name is/was being listed multiple times, I wonder if that has anything to do with it (I thought I wasn't getting any points from the console)
????
i see your output is up! care to share what machines you got folding?
one 08 MP 2.8 dual quad
two 09 MP 2.26 dual quads
I finally got inCrease to push my key to F@H, although it looks like one (one of the newer PMs) isn't getting the bonus... I'll have to check when I get back.
I could never get the Console one to work right....
I just saw that my user name is/was being listed multiple times, I wonder if that has anything to do with it (I thought I wasn't getting any points from the console)
????
jettredmont
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
This all started just because I said I hope Final Cut doesn't turn into iMovie. Somehow that turned into iMovie is pro and Final Cut is the Model T of editing.
No, no one said iMovie was Pro. You said you didn't want FCP to take the same "backward step" iMovie did. The hue and cry here is that, where we stand now, iMovie is a far more capable editor than iMovie HD ever was, and has room to grow where iMovieHD did not. It was NOT a step backwards.
Your rebuttal has been that iMovie is not pro, but that's obvious. iMovie HD was not pro (and was significantly less capable than iMovie today is in terms of precision editing, audio work, etc).
For my hobby work (NOT pro), I went from a die-hard Final Cut Pro user (I worked for Apple and got a hell of a discount on FCStudio) to an iMovie user with the past two revs of iMovie. I tried and simply could not use iMovie HD for what I wanted to do. I hit some barriers with iMovie today, but nothing like the crap that iMovie HD and before gave me.
No, no one said iMovie was Pro. You said you didn't want FCP to take the same "backward step" iMovie did. The hue and cry here is that, where we stand now, iMovie is a far more capable editor than iMovie HD ever was, and has room to grow where iMovieHD did not. It was NOT a step backwards.
Your rebuttal has been that iMovie is not pro, but that's obvious. iMovie HD was not pro (and was significantly less capable than iMovie today is in terms of precision editing, audio work, etc).
For my hobby work (NOT pro), I went from a die-hard Final Cut Pro user (I worked for Apple and got a hell of a discount on FCStudio) to an iMovie user with the past two revs of iMovie. I tried and simply could not use iMovie HD for what I wanted to do. I hit some barriers with iMovie today, but nothing like the crap that iMovie HD and before gave me.
milo
Sep 6, 11:00 AM
They are expensive - slow, with a lack of hard disc capacity when compared against the new iMacs and existing PowerBooks ( which I'm sure are also about to go Dual Core 2.
I think the $799 isn't a good deal. But you think the $599 model is expensive?
I do not consider a minor speed bump to be a refresh.
Then you're playing semantic games. They updated the MBP in april. Period.
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.
It's not a feature everyone wants, why should they force everyone to pay for it. Just buy a third party tuner (assuming apple doesn't introduce their own next tuesday).
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
That still doesn't mean you shouldn't get one NOW, when they cost $30.
I think the $799 isn't a good deal. But you think the $599 model is expensive?
I do not consider a minor speed bump to be a refresh.
Then you're playing semantic games. They updated the MBP in april. Period.
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.
It's not a feature everyone wants, why should they force everyone to pay for it. Just buy a third party tuner (assuming apple doesn't introduce their own next tuesday).
The parents bought a top of the line g4 iMac back when superdrives were 2x.
That still doesn't mean you shouldn't get one NOW, when they cost $30.
banjomamo
Jul 14, 01:26 AM
I think it will be at least 12 more months before bluray shows up in an Apple machine - at least as a standard. The only real hint I have seen is that they already let you author the HD-DVD spec video in DVD SP. Maybe because the Bluray specs werent done in time for that release though.
MacsRgr8
Oct 23, 12:58 PM
I bet ya.... these will be called:
PowerBook G5!!
:D
PowerBook G5!!
:D
Detlev
Jul 18, 06:15 AM
This does play into the news published about the industry allowing people to burn movies to DVDs but can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
jake4ever
Apr 2, 01:36 AM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
TallManNY
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
My Mom's iMac is on its last legs. I think I got it for her in early 2006 and its screen is having some streaking problems. Otherwise it still works, but a lot of the latest Apple software won't load on it. Once the refresh is out, I'm handing down my early 2008 iMac. That will be a big upgrade for her. I will get a new one for myself. I'm excited!
I suspect I will do what I always do though, I will look into the Mac Pro, price it out, hesitate, and then go buy the iMac again. I can never justify the money for the Pro.
I suspect I will do what I always do though, I will look into the Mac Pro, price it out, hesitate, and then go buy the iMac again. I can never justify the money for the Pro.
