Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ha Ha! who'd thunk that a puny
company like Apple could legitimize anything? (Besides Bluetooth, 802.11, USB)
doh.
dilleet: it's not difficult to grasp.
Just identifying the FUDs.
WLD: chips in production please
not something they say they have in a lab. They probably have 3.5Ghz G5 chips in a lab but what good does that do?
WLD: Show me the money.
What clockspeed are the IBM chips running at now?
You have so far provided nothing to backup your claim that Apple has been placed on IBM's backburner.
WLD: your FUD is full of it.
The idea IBM shutting Apple out of Power PC developemnt is perpostrous.
"they are putting Apple's cpu development on a backburner. It is full steam ahead for the IBM advanced cpu groups"
And what clockspeed is IBM's own chips running at nowadays? IBM needs Apple to legitimize the Power architecture, which is what the "cell" development is based on by the way, otherwise they will lose out to the likes of Intel and AMD. Last I heard, IBM is putting all their eggs into the Power architecture. Apple may not buy in volume but they are on the cutting edge sort of like their F1 racer.
The person that's not getting it is you.
Oh yeah,
maybe if they threw a billion here and there, they'd have a 6Ghz CPU but is it worth the investment when they can only sell at most 1 million units in a quarter?
Lango:
Yup, this is a message board and you have been only yakking and not making a one bit difference. I usually save my time for my mangerial duties.
As for your comment about management structure, if you have paid attention in your management 101 course, you will know that a flat organisation structure can works just as well as a tall one. The centralised approach has worked and is working for Apple by allowing them to get things done faster. Besides, Apple's management is in a transition phase. The new iPod division undoubtedly took talents away and I am sure they are finding replacments. To say that "Apple's management structure is fouled up" is unfounded.
Sure, I'll spare you the "out the change the world" stuff because this is something you are obviously not capable of.
Say what you will about IBM and where they are putting their resources. As far as I can see, both you and WLD are just speculating.
Lango: That's a load of BS.
Where you go off making comments like that? Unlike you, these guys have gone out to change the world and made most of our lives richer, and I don't mean just financially. These guys are no failures.
When I said that Apple being one of IBM's biggest customers, I meant for their Power series CPU. It is no secret that Apple is piggybacking on IBM CPU technology. If IBM can't bring their CPU to 3Ghz in volume, it means that their skill and technology is not there yet. Maybe IBM's attention have wavered elsewhere but that is total speculation. It is ludicrous to think that IBM is putting back development of their CPU business simply because Apple is buying too little. IBM itself is riding on the development of the technology as much as Apple is.
WLD: Oh, sorry I used the wrong word.
You said: "At this point Apple will be lucky if Fishkill assigns a friggin' janitor to deal with their issues."
You didn't mean to say "snubbing".
BTW, Jobs has already apologised for not delivering the 3Ghz when he introduced the 2.5Ghz. So what you are saying about the 3Ghz is old and irrelevant.
WLD:
What you are claiming is pure baloney and at best far flung speculation. There could be a number of better reasons that there are no 3Ghz chips available and you conclude that IBM is snubbing Apple.
I am not disputing the fact that MS and Sony are potentially big customers for the G5 chip but claiming that IBM is snubbing Apple, one of its biggest customer at the moment, is way off base and pure FUD.
WLD: And what volume are Sony and MS buying for
their vaporware at the moment?
WLD: You got anything to back up that FUD?em
Chris: I've got the MS BT mouse too which
I bought a few month back. On the box it said mac compatible. I never used the CD that came with it. It just worked with OS X.
I bought one recently for a relative but the box no longer says mac compatible. It still worked. I don't think you need to look for drivers. BT is BT. Just make sure you have the latest BT module in your mac.
Lisa: What competition?
spitsong:
from your link:
"How does H.264 compare with MPEG-2?
HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality. H.264 provides DVD quality at about half the data rate of MPEG-2. Because of this efficiency, H.264, an ISO standard, stands to be the likely successor to MPEG-2 in the professional media industry."
It also does not mention whether a G4 is capable of playing full HD content:
"While H.264 is a computationally advanced codec, it runs on today’s shipping computers with no additional hardware required. For example, a full HD movie (1920x1080, 8 Mbps, 24 fps) encoded with H.264 plays back beautifully on a dual Power Mac G5. Internet-sized content (40kbps - 300kbps) will run on the most basic of processors, like those in mobile phones and consumer-level computers."
spitsong:
It appears that H.264 is a scalable compression technology even a 3G phone will be able to play it. The question we've been debating is whether or not the mac mini can decode full HD video.
I found this from Apple:
"Not only is H.264 very efficient, providing extremely high quality in smaller files, but H.264 is also scalable, producing video for everything from 3G for mobile phones to iChat AV to High Definition (HD) DVDs. H.264 can create great-looking 3G mobile content at 50-160 Kbps, excellent Standard Definition (SD) video at 800-1500 Kbps, beautiful HD video (1280x720, 24p) at 5-7 Mbps and full HD video (1920x1080, 24p) at 7-9 Mbps. So at today’s SD DVD data rates, H.264 can deliver full HD."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/h264.html
From Apple's explaination, full HD video (1920x1080, 24p) is only 7-9Mbps not 20Mbps as WLD claims. Whether this is a dumb down version of HD, I don't know but the question is will the mini be able to handle decompression of mpeg4 content at 7-9Mbps.
Even if the CPU is incapable of handling such bitrate, I have a feeling that Apple has already put in hardware decoders onto the videocards of today's new macs.
Tomm: Thanks for the link
The reason why that article said that the mac mini could not playback HD content is because:
"The EyeTV software relies on no hardware acceleration for mpeg playback, which explains the processor load. The entire burden of decoding and displaying the high-def mpeg2 file falls on the CPU. When I asked EyeTV why it did not take advantage of the hardware acceleration included in the graphics cards installed in modern Macs, they explained that Apple has not made those interfaces easily accessible to third party developers. Enabling hardware acceleration is thus not likely to be in the cards for EyeTV's software in the near future."
http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/eyetv500.php
Browse down to "System Requirement".
It seems that the mac mini has hardware decoder for mpeg 2 which EyeTV did not use.
WLD:
You were saying earlier:
"and cringely, frankly, is being irresponsible with the HD talk. the mini is too slow to play HD. period. end of story."
Now you are saying it can play HD but just not the top-end bitrates in mpeg4. I have no argument there eventhough you haven't proven that the mini is incapable of handling it. OTOH, I don't buy the argument that what looks good on a 17" monitor will look terrible on a giant screen. Pixel for pixel, a 17" has as much resolution as a giant screen.
I have two HD giant screens at home and from what I have seen, most contents are garbage in garbage out. The only good HD stuff mostly comes from PBS. My point is consumers are not screaming for caviar at the moment. A compromised HD maybe something along the line of HDV could be accepted. And if content can be streamed wirelessly to our big screen and open up a market for ondemand video downloading, its all the better for Apple and consumers.
WLD: Got it but...
please explain why iMovie HD, which comes with Mac mini BTW, can work with the Mac mini. Can I not watch the full frame HD content from the Mac mini with its 1.25/1.42GHz G4 processor?
*edited*
What makes you so sure the Mac mini cannot handle full res HD data?
WLD:
You still haven't explained what data rate have to do with the processor. As I recall my old 400Mhz G3 powerbook decode and play DVD's just fine and I am pretty sure the Mac mini is more than 4x faster than that old powerbook.
WLD: I don't know where you get your 20Mbs
I am playing Shark Tales DivX HD trailers on my Dualie G5 in QT and here are the specs:
Playing FPS: 24
Data Size: 60.4MB
Data Rate: 443.9k bytes/sec
Normal Size: 1280 x 688 pixels
Current Size: 1960 x 1024
443.9k bytes/sec is no where near 20Mbs. I can understand if the mac mini is too slow to decode full res HD files in realtime but then what does it have to do with data rate?
Appreicate it if anyone out there can try playing these HD trailers in full res from their Mac mini or +1Ghz G4.
Bootz: Apple has a price matching guarantee
Target probably screwed them there. Apple can't be happy.
Bootz: Are you serious?
"they should be giving away a 512MB Shuffle with every CPU sold"
Give away something that they don't have enough to sell? Doesn't make good business sense to me.
Yeah, and the X-box 2 is on schedule...
with Longhorn.
yes, the Linksys G works with the Mac
both wired and wireless.
Don't have the speedbooster though.
From the Pioneer press release:
"The 10 million owners of iPod portable music players in the United States can celebrate"
Wasn't it 10 million iPod worldwide?
Lango: The kid is not being sued. em
Those keyboard and mouse make all the difference.
Linda: In Safari
Preference/autofill and turn them all off.
dumping Safari is still a dumb idea.
WLD: Dump Safari?
That would put the fate of a critical Mac app into the hands of another company. I think Apple has been there and done that.
Besides, Firefox probably got some Safari's codes in it.
WLD:
Look, you don't use OSX and you can make an X-box fly. Why are you so interested in Mac discussions anyway?
80Gb would not be too big
for audiophiles who prefer to rip their song in LossLess format.
Personally, I got a Sony Ericsson T610.
I download midi music for my ringtones from my Mac and download to my phone via Bluetooth. Mot should say screw them and sell a full featured phone. Mot should even provide free Midi ringtone downloads for the phone. When Mot gets enough demand for such full featured phones, all carriers will have to give in.
Linda: I don't know how to externalize the SATA drive
but you can swap the internal for a larger capacity one when it is available. You can probably sell the old drive on e-bay. Someone with a G5 tower could use it.
What? Did you think
MS did everything wrong to get to where they are today?
Blue: I see your point but you know
Apple, a consumer machine will always be a consumer machine. You can always swap out the 250 in the future for one of bigger capacity.
yofal: all I am saying is that they are
two different animals, eventhough they may share the same genes. The best analogy would be comparing a human with a monkey.
Would it make a difference
if they gave you one 350GB drive instead of a 250GB with an option of adding another albeit more expensive and slower 80GB?
I can tell you one thing.
The majority of the people out there can't hack it.
So I don't see any way any X-box will take away any sales of any Mac except maybe you. BTW, you didn't buy a Mac to run Mac OS did you?