LarryC
Feb 24, 09:49 PM
They are exempt from CAFE( since HD's are supposed to be work trucks and all), but they are required to meet the new diesel emissions laws.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
Turbojugend27
Aug 7, 07:06 AM
Pretty bold statement for Apple, I don't think I would use that quite yet. As for myself I am buying my first apple in a week or so and can't wait, I don't think Apple has a userbase yet to be making statements like that.
ciaran00
Jun 23, 11:23 AM
This doesn't sound like Apple at all. I call shenanigans.
And HP Touchsmart sucks (to me).
And HP Touchsmart sucks (to me).
twoodcc
Aug 29, 10:06 AM
well at least they are upgrading them. but i agree, the mini needs merom
PodHead
Dec 1, 10:22 PM
You know what I would like with iTV?
Live content.
Think about it for a moment. I think everyone hates how expensive cable TV is. I am paying $45 per month just for 50 channels or so, with maybe 10 of those I actually watch (the networks, MSNBC, NESN, FSNE, ESPN, and a few other random ones).
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes.
However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news. iTV and iTunes does not (yet) allow you to watch live streaming content.
If Apple could somehow strike a deal to cover sports and other live content such as news...that just really opens the door. Major League Baseball already does it with MLB.TV, except it is browser based. Imagine the same thing, but on iTV!?!?
Do that, and I would seriously cancel my cable tv subscription and go a la carte with iTunes. I spend roughly $540 a year on my 50 channels of cable TV, of which I at most watch 10 channels. I would much rather spend say $270 (half of the $540) on the 5 or so shows I watch, plus season passes for my local baseball and football teams, and the news channel of my choice.
That is where iTV could become a real winner.
I'm in the same boat!! Except I live in Japan. I rely solely on iTunes to watch my favorite shows in the U.S. But...I usually have to wait an extra day (not including the day it takes to appear on iTunes) to watch them. By the time the Packers have won (being optimistic) I'm two, sometimes three days behind (or ahead depending how you look at it) the news. I would totally stay up til 3:00 am to watch them live from the states.:p
Live content.
Think about it for a moment. I think everyone hates how expensive cable TV is. I am paying $45 per month just for 50 channels or so, with maybe 10 of those I actually watch (the networks, MSNBC, NESN, FSNE, ESPN, and a few other random ones).
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes.
However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news. iTV and iTunes does not (yet) allow you to watch live streaming content.
If Apple could somehow strike a deal to cover sports and other live content such as news...that just really opens the door. Major League Baseball already does it with MLB.TV, except it is browser based. Imagine the same thing, but on iTV!?!?
Do that, and I would seriously cancel my cable tv subscription and go a la carte with iTunes. I spend roughly $540 a year on my 50 channels of cable TV, of which I at most watch 10 channels. I would much rather spend say $270 (half of the $540) on the 5 or so shows I watch, plus season passes for my local baseball and football teams, and the news channel of my choice.
That is where iTV could become a real winner.
I'm in the same boat!! Except I live in Japan. I rely solely on iTunes to watch my favorite shows in the U.S. But...I usually have to wait an extra day (not including the day it takes to appear on iTunes) to watch them. By the time the Packers have won (being optimistic) I'm two, sometimes three days behind (or ahead depending how you look at it) the news. I would totally stay up til 3:00 am to watch them live from the states.:p
skeep5
Aug 26, 02:32 PM
Like this?
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:46 AM
Not just wrong but probably illegal in several countries.
My own country belgium for example its illegal to store such data without consent of the person itself.
No iPhones in Belgium?
My own country belgium for example its illegal to store such data without consent of the person itself.
No iPhones in Belgium?
wkhahn
Sep 7, 12:48 PM
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
bigmc6000
Jul 18, 08:02 AM
I think it'd be a good idea. What most people in here seem to forget about is that there are millions of people who don't have DVD burners, much less DL DVD burners. Also, if the quality gets much more than 480p we're talking about quite a few older computers not being able to play it back very well. I think my 1.5GHz Powerbook is technically (according to apple) limited at 480p so if there's any slow down or jerkiness to get it to 720p I'm not a big fan of that.
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
I think rental is a good idea - I've gone to blockbuster a few times and I've even watched some films from my cable company just because I didn't feel like going to blockbuster. But if they can make the price good (1.99 or 2.99 tops) it'd still be cheaper than either of the options I just listed and it'd be whole lot easier to do it.
I like download to buy for music but I'm with a lot of people on here in that if I want to own a movie I'll just go to target the day it's released and get it for $16.
One more thing - you don't want Steve to win this round because the studios would require an absurd pricing model. Look at the universal store - 29.99 for new releases?!?! If you want the DVD just go to Walmart or Target etc and get it way below MSRP otherwise the movie companies are going to make apple do what the retails do - take a loss on every single one sold and I really don't think Steve would be down with that...
Sydde
Mar 1, 08:54 PM
Wikipedia states the Toyota Prius 3rd Gen gets a combined AFE of 50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Third_generation_.28XW30.3B_2009.E2.80.93present.29) mpg (4.7L US gallons) if the diesel Cruze gets 37/48, that would give it a median AFE of 42.5 — 85% of what the Prius gets.
OTOH, they say "Drive a Toyota, you'll never stop!" and, "Toyota, the last car you'll ever drive."
OTOOH, Chevy? Yeesh. You might as well have XP on an Acer.
OTOH, they say "Drive a Toyota, you'll never stop!" and, "Toyota, the last car you'll ever drive."
OTOOH, Chevy? Yeesh. You might as well have XP on an Acer.
davidia
Jan 11, 09:32 PM
This Air theme is very plausible. We have AirPort, AirTunes etc. Now we will have more products that will come together via AirPort. Any new products will now have the Air connections. This could be a combination of 802.11x or Bluetooth protocols depending on the level of connectivity required. iPods, iPhones and eventually MacBooks and Macs and even monitors will have no physical connections. We probably won't see this in the laptops or desktops until 802.11 gets up towards USB2.0 speeds. However iPhones and iPods can go without dock connectors sooner as we only sync smaller amounts of data. The size of these devices can then continue to get smaller and look better without the connector which is looking too big on iPod nanos.
So I think something in the air could be this new direction towards complete wirelessness in Apple products. We may see the sub notebook or tablet be the first to have very limited or no non-wireless connectivity. You may need to have an AirPort to sync and transfer data from your desktop.
The idea of a new "DuoDock" with an iMac form factor does appeal to me, but I think what we will see is that the new sub or tablet can sit beside your Desktop or remain in its pouch on a shelf and still sync and be ready with all the data you need for when you next hit the road. No need to plug anything in.
So I think something in the air could be this new direction towards complete wirelessness in Apple products. We may see the sub notebook or tablet be the first to have very limited or no non-wireless connectivity. You may need to have an AirPort to sync and transfer data from your desktop.
The idea of a new "DuoDock" with an iMac form factor does appeal to me, but I think what we will see is that the new sub or tablet can sit beside your Desktop or remain in its pouch on a shelf and still sync and be ready with all the data you need for when you next hit the road. No need to plug anything in.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used.
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
Context doesn't impact a trademark either. The only thing that would permit anyone to use the "App Store" trademark if it was granted would be outside of Apple's selected field of trade.
I could call my restaurant "App Store" because Apple did not trademark App Store as it relates to restoration and food. I could call my new Car model the "GM App Store", as it does not relate to the field in which Apple trademarked it.
I can't however call my store that sells Applications "App Store" or use "App Store" in a portion of its name, or for the slogan "KnightMarket : The best darn App Store!"
That is why descriptive trademarks aren't usually awarded and granted. Because it gives too much power to a single entity in a certain field of trade. We'll see how the USPTO decides this when they hand in their final decision in Apple's request, especially now that Microsoft filed in the opposition phase (which is exactly why the USPTO has an opposition phase to begin with).
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:19 PM
I love the adoption of iMovies people detection and shot detection features... this is great.... rolling shutter fixing is a feature adobe previewed but typical for apple they do it on import, rather than as an "effect" you can add.
mavis
Sep 14, 03:45 PM
When will it stop??
Maybe when Apple fixes their **** design so that my $600 phone doesn't say "No Service" every time I make the mistake of holding it with my left hand instead of my right. :mad:
Maybe when Apple fixes their **** design so that my $600 phone doesn't say "No Service" every time I make the mistake of holding it with my left hand instead of my right. :mad:
kresh
Jan 13, 01:59 AM
GreenPeace will go Ape Shite if the MacBookAir is charged through induction. It will not be near as efficient in power transfer as a direct connection would be. (nothing transfers with 100% efficiency)
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
I can see GreenPeace attacking Apple now because the new notebooks will cause a 15% spike in electricity consumption, dumping 15% more carbon into the air. Death to Apple!
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 05:34 PM
That's because in the US most of us drive on two types of roads, crowded ones and dead straight ones. Automatics are superior on crowded ones and it doesn't matter on straight ones.
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
macidiot
Jul 19, 04:41 PM
How could the analysts be off by almost a billion dollars? Are they held to account for this?
Of course not. Their job is to not be accurate. Their job is to generate revenue, usually in the form of stock trades. If they are accurate, it is usually because the company they are covering essentially gave them the EXACT numbers.
Analyst downgrades stock, people sell. Analyst upgrades stock, people buy. rinse, repeat every couple of months.
However, most analysts are pleasant people. Must be from those mid-six figure salaries.
Of course not. Their job is to not be accurate. Their job is to generate revenue, usually in the form of stock trades. If they are accurate, it is usually because the company they are covering essentially gave them the EXACT numbers.
Analyst downgrades stock, people sell. Analyst upgrades stock, people buy. rinse, repeat every couple of months.
However, most analysts are pleasant people. Must be from those mid-six figure salaries.
simie
Nov 16, 12:50 PM
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/desktops/0,1000000968,39284700,00.htm
jav6454
Mar 25, 03:06 PM
The cpus used in the dual-cpu MP are 80-95W parts (top is the 95W Xeon X5670 right now), so it's give or take ~190W.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
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.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
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.
aibo82
May 2, 07:54 PM
Yes but are they bringing:
Ios to the mac
Mac to the ios
The wrong way around is going to kill power users and the openeness thats left of the mac os operating system do we really want a closed off mac os/ios hybrid?
Mac os should be advancing not getting waterd down with simple user toys! We are going to be paying more for less!
iPad Pro?
Macbook dead!
Ios to the mac
Mac to the ios
The wrong way around is going to kill power users and the openeness thats left of the mac os operating system do we really want a closed off mac os/ios hybrid?
Mac os should be advancing not getting waterd down with simple user toys! We are going to be paying more for less!
iPad Pro?
Macbook dead!
diamond.g
Mar 24, 03:47 PM
Anytime OS X detects quartz, OpenGL, etc. it kicks in. You get the idea. Generally when those are detected you tend to be doing something that will require heavy load(or heavier load).
Right.
Like running the new FF 4 (which appears to trigger the dGPU now for no apparent reason). Or when Safari needs to update its thumbnails and the dGPU kicks on.
:p
Hopefully Apple will improve the switchover to make it more frugal.
Right.
Like running the new FF 4 (which appears to trigger the dGPU now for no apparent reason). Or when Safari needs to update its thumbnails and the dGPU kicks on.
:p
Hopefully Apple will improve the switchover to make it more frugal.
steviem
Apr 11, 01:56 PM
DSG isn't an automatic gearbox by the standard of Torque Converters or CVT.
It uses two banks of gears and two clutches.
My friend had a Citroen C2 with a Tiptronic gearbox. This is an automatic with flappy paddles on the steering wheel. That was an automatic (Torque converter) that just changed the way the automatic gear selector layout to a stick with Park, Drive, reverse and if you flicked the gear selector to the right, you could use the flappy paddles.
The differences with this Automatic and DSG, was that in the Citroen, when you flicked up, you then had to wait more than a beat for the gear to change up. You had to wait more than a beat for the gear to change down, and if you went too far out of rev range, it would change up or down without your input.
On the DSG, in manual mode, you still have control over the gears and revs, just the clutches are controlled by computer, which can disengage the clutch and engage the other clutch (with the next gear) in a flash.
It uses two banks of gears and two clutches.
My friend had a Citroen C2 with a Tiptronic gearbox. This is an automatic with flappy paddles on the steering wheel. That was an automatic (Torque converter) that just changed the way the automatic gear selector layout to a stick with Park, Drive, reverse and if you flicked the gear selector to the right, you could use the flappy paddles.
The differences with this Automatic and DSG, was that in the Citroen, when you flicked up, you then had to wait more than a beat for the gear to change up. You had to wait more than a beat for the gear to change down, and if you went too far out of rev range, it would change up or down without your input.
On the DSG, in manual mode, you still have control over the gears and revs, just the clutches are controlled by computer, which can disengage the clutch and engage the other clutch (with the next gear) in a flash.
antmarobel
Mar 31, 12:07 PM
They rearrange themselves at their own will! If I drag one to the right of the other, for instance, another one, completely different, comes to the place where I intended to place the first one...:eek:
goobot
May 2, 06:58 PM
Great news, i just wish they would scan my apps and link them to the app store if i downloaded else where, i mean at least for free apps :(
No comments:
Post a Comment