Anyone else dissapointed that the 3GS looks just like the 3G? I have a first gen iPhone and didnt upgrade to the 3G because I hate the look of the shiny, scratch and fingerprint prone plastic back... I was hoping that the 3GS would look a little nicer, guess I'll just have to hold onto my 2G.
The new iPhone operating system 3.0 will be free for all iPhone customers. Worldwide available: June 17. (for iTouch: $9.95) So the ipod touch users will have to pay for this? But pay for what exactly.
I think Apple had a great keynote addressing everything. New macbook pros, snow leopard only $29 in september. iphone 3G speed with 3MP camera plus video, love that it's now super fast, and will be available june 19th. I don't mind that they didn't change the look, I care more about internals than externals. I loved how they made this one just in time for when original iphone owners contracts expire.
Well first of all, the 3.06 processor and 8GB is certainly not stock. If you are using the laptop for what it is made for, you don't care about battery life. Honestly that has no meaning to most performance enthusiasts, as power sources are so readily available. Go through and add the 3.06 (they don't even say what model it is, which just shows how naive Macbook customers are) and the 8GB of RAM, it is 3,600. (http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB986LL/A?mco=NjcxMTU0Mw) Compared to the Sager NP8662 (http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np8662-built-clevo-m860tu-custom-gaming-laptop-p-2564.html?wconfigure=yes) with the same specs and MUCH better video card (nVidia GTX260 (1GB GDDR3)) it is about $900 cheaper. Granted it is a bit bigger and thicker, it would destroy the Mac in every performance test. Macbooks are for fanboys and people who want to look cool. They have horrible cooling and are just so overpriced. As for artistic software, that argument lost all weight years ago. Anything available for a Mac is possible on a PC, and in most cases runs better and faster. Apple loves to make normal people think they are graphic designers with programs like iPhoto and such, but for any professional, they are just toys. Anyway, iPhone 3GS looks pretty cool, I'd like to know what processor it uses and if the RAM was increased, anyone see any specs on it?
Well, seeing as the T9500 is 2.6, the 9600 is 2.8, it is not either of those, and as Intel just refreshed their processors, it is clearly the T9900. There is no other current processor from Intel with a 3.06 clock speed and 6MB of L2 cache (http://ark.intel.com/product.aspx?id=39312). But Apple doesn't tell you this, they just want you to blindly buy whatever they say is a "3.06" Intel processor. It's just unprofessional to not list the full specs of the hardware on a selling point of the machine. Why would one want an integrated GPU other than to save battery? They are useless otherwise, if there is a dedicated GPU already. It is just a selling point. And the 9600M GT isn't anything special anyways, doesn't even begin to compare to the GTX 260M. The vast majority of people who buy Macs nowadays (college kids) have most likely never heard of those programs, let alone be able to use them to their full potential. Granted, professionals are able to produce some quality projects using the software, but surely any comparable PC software could generate similar results. Of course everyone knew that, but I'd like to know the exact clock speed and if the RAM is just faster or if it has been increased. I don't understand where your hostility came from by the way, you say you are not a fanboy yet you are defending Apple very adamantly. Honestly I think OSX is kinda cool, but Apple is just deceiving about their hardware and its over priced nature. The Mac would have died had it not been for the iPod, which generated a lot of interest in Apple and its other products. The people who buy Macbooks are, for the most part, uneducated about computer hardware in general and just drawn in by the "cool" factor, and the desire to be the new hipster with their "fast" Macbook Pro. Apple is just so generic and misleading with their specifications and claims, which almost always turn out to be inflated when tested in the real world. Nothing personal here spiffy, just conversation, don't take anything in the wrong way or tone, just purely stating my thoughts
Okay. So let's add that to the cost of the machine you picked then. The CPU would be the T9900. Add to that the cost of the WUXGA resolution monitor (1920 x 1200) as that matches the Macbook Pro. Add to that the a 500 GB SATA HDD @ 7200 RPM. Add to that the 8 GB of RAM. Oh, and throw in Vista Home Basic, as according to that product's description "Requires Vista 64-Bit to utilize 4GB+ (Up to 6.8GB due to Chipset Limitation)". While we're at it, add in MS Office Basic. Oh, and throw in the $240 3 year parts and labor w/24/7 support lifetime warranty (nifty warranty, tbqh). Total cost: $3349.41 Total cost of a Macbook Pro w/similar set up (iLife in lieu of MS Office Basic, $349 3 year parts and labor warranty): $4076 So, yeah...a little over $700 more. Unless...you're a student. No student discount from that site to which you linked. The Mac does have that, however, and it is $3823. That said, Dells are all around a better deal on that end. Then again, there's been no computer, for my money, that matches up to the old Amiga. But, hey...that's just me. That's precisely why they'd want it. That's why it's such a feature was seen as so nice to have. Why have the stand alone GPU running when you can just shut it off and run less intensive processes off of the integrated GPU? Saves battery power. Nice thing to have in handy. Pretty much all film programs in colleges use Final Cut Pro. Some use FCP in addition to AVID and Premiere Pro, all running on quad core Mac Pros (the desktop versions). Photography classes tend to use Adobe Photoshop, but some do use Aperture, and, regardless, most are running on Macs (Apple, probably because it helps their bottom line more than anything, really does some pretty good outreach to educational institutions, and this is part of the reason they've been adopted so heavily in art and design type programs across colleges in the US). If one is a film student learning green screen or any form of effect like that, one is likely to be using Shake in addition to stuff like Adobe After Effects. And since you admit that quite a great many Mac owners are "college kids"...we really ought to figure in the educational discount. And, hey! They even throw in a free iPod touch and printer! I don't get a free Zune with the purchase of a PC. If I did...I might've bought a PC Not really. The indie film projects tend to use Macs running either Apple software, Adobe software, or AVID turnkey systems. I remember a time when it was all Amiga (*wipes tear from eye...I miss Amiga), but now it's pretty much all Macs. But... ...in the studios, they all run proprietary software made in house. LucasArts, for instance, mostly makes their own special effects software. Photographers, though, tend to mainly use Macs from what I've seen. The "hostility" is in jest, mainly. I do, however, take some offense to the idea that all Mac owners "don't know any better". Believe me when I state this: I researched the hell out of my options before I plunked down for my Macbook Pro a year and a half ago. I was mainly a PC guy before that, and before that an Amiga guy (as you may have guessed). I made an educated decision for me and my needs, and others in the art and design fields with whom I learned with made decisions based on things that suited their own needs. And, besides, most of the people who are faux hipsters on college campuses now have those "sleek" little netbooks running Ubuntu flavored Linux. Only a matter of time before they all start using ARM powered netbooks running Android.
