[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Tjhey could just move to a Dual Processor iMac G4.Lord knows they havent done as much as they could have with the G4 and there's still room for improvement.

I'm just guessing...dual processor iMac G4s. Why wouldnt they want to tap into that potential before moving to the G5 ?

They could make a dual G5 iMac and I still wouldn't buy it...

BROKEN RECORD: A headless iMac where I can throw in a second HD and add a monitor would be perfect.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
BROKEN RECORD: A headless iMac where I can throw in a second HD and add a monitor would be perfect.

Hey you know, I heard they were selling something like this since the intro of the G5... It's the same price as the low end iMac, but runs as fast as the top of the line one. Oh, and it's called the Power Mac G4

http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/

Sure it's not 1000, but neither is the iMac.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I think a 802.11 remote control would be interesting.

I like that idea.
Not only for Airport Express.
It would come handy for all kinds of things...

-t

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Tjhey could just move to a Dual Processor iMac G4.Lord knows they havent done as much as they could have with the G4 and there's still room for improvement.

I'm just guessing...dual processor iMac G4s. Why wouldnt they want to tap into that potential before moving to the G5 ?

Funny you should mention it.

There seems to be something about this idea.

Originally posted by Stolfi1:
I work at Compusa in our pos(point of sale) system we have a UPC in our system for a dual 1.25 Imac we cant order then but the sku is there.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...59#post2030859

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Tjhey could just move to a Dual Processor iMac G4.Lord knows they havent done as much as they could have with the G4 and there's still room for improvement.

I'm just guessing...dual processor iMac G4s. Why wouldnt they want to tap into that potential before moving to the G5 ?

You would think, but would the general population "get" the difference.

Most people see G4 and G5 and say "I want the G5" even when they don't know the difference.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
You would think, but would the general population "get" the difference.

Most people see G4 and G5 and say "I want the G5" even when they don't know the difference.

Yeah, but if the general public had the choice between a single G5 or a dual G4 iMac, what would you think they would chose ?

Double is more

Btw, what would be faster ?
A dual G4 1.25 Ghz, or a single G5 2 GHz ?
Anyone knows ?

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Hey you know, I heard they were selling something like this since the intro of the G5... It's the same price as the low end iMac, but runs as fast as the top of the line one. Oh, and it's called the Power Mac G4

http://www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/

Sure it's not 1000, but neither is the iMac.

I guess, but my point is, new buyers don't want to buy a two year old computer.

They want a new computer with the options that suite their needs. In the new arena, if you want either to add an internal HD or add a second monitor or a monitor that isn't attached, your minimum configuration starts around $2000 (not including the monitor).

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Yeah, but if the general public had the choice between a single G5 or a dual G4 iMac, what would you think they would chose ?

Double is more

Btw, what would be faster ?
A dual G4 1.25 Ghz, or a single G5 2 GHz ?
Anyone knows ?

-t

I don't think most consumers would know...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by turtle777:
I like that idea.
Not only for Airport Express.
It would come handy for all kinds of things...

-t

Especially for general remote control.

I think you could be creative enough to come up with many things.

[daimoni]

.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by turtle777:
I like that idea.
Not only for Airport Express.
It would come handy for all kinds of things...

-t

802.11 speakers, 802.11 remote controls, 802.11 keyboards & mice...

[Seb G]

Btw, what would be faster ?
A dual G4 1.25 Ghz, or a single G5 2 GHz ?
Anyone knows ?

The single G5 I would think. One thing is that not all applications can be parallelised easily, and many more just aren't written to support two processors. Secondly, memory access on a G5 is a lot faster than on a G4.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Seb G:
The single G5 I would think. One thing is that not all applications can be parallelised easily, and many more just aren't written to support two processors. Secondly, memory access on a G5 is a lot faster than on a G4.

I think it depends. Carbon applications usually only use one processor (this may have change, but for the most part I think it's still true). Also, OS X is said to multiprocess well, but not great. Which is sad because the BeOS did VERY well in that area.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
802.11 speakers, 802.11 remote controls, 802.11 keyboards & mice...

Now all we need is wireless power.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
Now all we need is wireless power.

And free computers and iPods.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
Now all we need is wireless power.

The SUN ???

-t

[John F. Smith]

why would apple release a new ipod line when the mini is currently in high demand? why take the spo

tlight off

the mini? hmm?

[gomariners]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
802.11 speakers, 802.11 remote controls, 802.11 keyboards & mice...

We don't use ethernet for keybords. We don't use ethernet for mice. We wouldn't use ethernet for remote controls if we wanted wired remotes - it's too much bandwidth! I don't think there's any need to go beyond bluetooth for these things. A bluetooth remote would be versitile as much as an 802.11 remote would, as long as you weren't planning on storing large quantities (100 MB) of data on the remote. All it needs is the list of things you can play or do, and maybe some images, but not more. Then it would be small and low power.

[Link]

I think Steve Jobs is going to be mad..

"You people spend so much time whining on the forums you know what? I'm going to take back my 500mhz!"

[Millennium]

Originally posted by gomariners:
We don't use ethernet for keybords. We don't use ethernet for mice. We wouldn't use ethernet for remote controls if we wanted wired remotes - it's too much bandwidth!

Actually, keyboards, mice, and remotes don't take up much bandwidth at all. These devices have been around since the days connection speeds were measured in bytes per second; no K, no M, and certainly no G. A keypress on a keyboard can easily fit into a single byte, and even less than that on a remote. I don't know what mouse movement takes up, but it's unlikely to be much more than that.

That said, the Bluetooth standard sucks very badly in a lot of ways. It gets the job done, but quite poorly; among other things, it has a nasty habit of interfering with other wireless devices because the standard makes no attempt to avoid or reduce such interference. Let's not forget that the standard itself has been shown to have inherent security flaws, things which cannot be bypassed without violating the protocol.

I don't think there's any need to go beyond bluetooth for these things. A bluetooth remote would be versitile as much as an 802.11 remote would, as long as you weren't planning on storing large quantities (100 MB) of data on the remote. All it needs is the list of things you can play or do, and maybe some images, but not more. Then it would be small and low power.

Actually, Bluetooth has a major limitation as opposed to 802.11: range. That reason alone would make 802.11 a virtual necessity for an AEx remote, because otherwise you'd still have to be too close to the computer for there to be much of a point to having the remote control in the first place.

As for the list of things you could play or do, that could easily get very problematic with large music collections. I have several thousand songs in my personal playlist, and mine is fairly small by the standards of the target market of this device. You could probably fit the appropriate metadata for one of these into a kilobyte, so that's already about a megabyte per 1000 songs. Bluetooth is not rated to carry that much data in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time. Considering that you'd probably want to display a good amount of data for each song (title and artist, at the absolute least, and probably album and personal rating as well), and you're looking at something the size of a Newton, probably in landscape mode.

That's not as much of a problem as you might think, though. Two or three AA-size batteries should cover it; that's pretty low-power.

[lngtones]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, keyboards, mice, and remotes don't take up much bandwidth at all. These devices have been around since the days connection speeds were measured in bytes per second; no K, no M, and certainly no G. A keypress on a keyboard can easily fit into a single byte, and even less than that on a remote. I don't know what mouse movement takes up, but it's unlikely to be much more than that.

I'm pretty sure he meant ethernet is overkill for those sorts of devices. Could be wrong thoug.

[mitchell_pgh]

Wasn't bluetooth going to be the "cheap" alternative in networking. Like being able to have bluetooth in your cell phone, digital camera, watch, computer, etc. etc.

Basically a very cheap way to build a personal network. Something within a few feel (30') of the devices.

I'm amazed that it didn't catch on the way it should have.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Wasn't bluetooth going to be the "cheap" alternative in networking. Like being able to have bluetooth in your cell phone, digital camera, watch, computer, etc. etc.

Basically a very cheap way to build a personal network. Something within a few feet (30') of the devices.

AFAIK, Bluetooth was NEVER meant to be a networking standard, but rather to replace cords for serial data transmission.
Yes, you can do some networking with Bluettoth, but what's the advantage over 802.11 ?

As said before, range with BT sucks.

In the future, 802.11 chips are going to be much smaller and draw far less power. IIRC there will be WLAN chips that have everything on board, on less then one square inch.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/104/C2635/
http://www.agere.com/client/docs/mul...hite_paper.pdf

802.11 is going to b everything that BT promised to be, but never delivered. And with the upcoming IPv6, this makes even more sense...

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

I think Bluetooth was meant to be what 802.11 is turning in to. It's low power and cheap. 802.11 was big and expensive.

Now it's starting not to make much of a difference. AirPort Express is showing us just how small it can get.

[itai195]

All 802.11 has to do to make BT irrelevant (now that low power, small chips are coming out) is to focus more on application level services through the addition of profiles, like the profiles in BT (eg dialup connection, faxing, printing, headset, data exchange, serial, etc). 802.11g is not really made for ad hoc connections between devices like BT is. I'm not intimately familiar with the 802.11x family of standards, but I'd imagine that this sort of thing is being worked on. Then we'd see a lot more wifi enabled services pop up in the future... whereas right now, something like AirTunes is a big deal.

[gomariners]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, keyboards, mice, and remotes don't take up much bandwidth at all. These devices have been around since the days connection speeds were measured in bytes per second; no K, no M, and certainly no G. A keypress on a keyboard can easily fit into a single byte, and even less than that on a remote. I don't know what mouse movement takes up, but it's unlikely to be much more than that.

Right, that's why I said it was too much bandwidth, I mean it was overkill, not necessary.

Actually, Bluetooth has a major limitation as opposed to 802.11: range. That reason alone would make 802.11 a virtual necessity for an AEx remote, because otherwise you'd still have to be too close to the computer for there to be much of a point to having the remote control in the first place.

Right, you'd need a USB dongle to plug into your AEx, but you could still be ~30 ft from your stereo and be fine. You wouldn't have to bluetooth it back to your computer directly

As for the list of things you could play or do, that could easily get very problematic with large music collections. I have several thousand songs in my personal playlist, and mine is fairly small by the standards of the target market of this device. You could probably fit the appropriate metadata for one of these into a kilobyte, so that's already about a megabyte per 1000 songs. Bluetooth is not rated to carry that much data in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time. Considering that you'd probably want to display a good amount of data for each song (title and artist, at the absolute least, and probably album and personal rating as well), and you're looking at something the size of a Newton, probably in landscape mode.

This is why you simply take an ipod, keep the 32mb or so flash memory, take out the HD, add bluetooth communication. All the metadata would upload initially in a syncing to available playlists and computers. After that, only selection info would need to be transmitted. Saves on transmission power. I don't see why you'd need anything bigger than an ipod (but thinner), though.

[Link]

What about the remote wonder? Bluetooth sickens me. It's seriously the crappiest RF system ever developed. Not only is it slow but it has lousy range... AND it's expensive.