Mac Fly (film)
Nov 30, 05:51 AM
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.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
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.
What if the iTV did both, which it will? B, G and N. They would offer the same quality download to start with. Broadband connections haven't reached acceptable levels for HD movie downloads in 1080p etc. So as is, if you have an intel Mac, all it means is that the video, movie etc. will shoot over to your TV a heck of alot quicker. The name's gonna be "Teleport" by the way.
Rocketman
Jan 3, 03:30 PM
Anyway do you guys think a ultra portable Apple laptop is in the works?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I for one don't. I think what the rumors are referring to is a "netboot" device over wi-max (and Edge or its replacement) in a handheld form factor.
32gb or so of flash or P-RAM local storage would allow reasobable pre-fetch of 1/4HD and any streams you are following. Computer apps take a small fraction of the storage and bandwidth of video apps. Plenty of room for battery in such a device too per Shuffle.
This addresses the ultra-portable market, the post newton market, the video iPod market (mobile TiVo), the iChat and text message market, and the crackberry replacement market.
Think about it. You are talking with Apple's or your server, or a Google server of all your content of all types on a device capable of mobile broadband and reasonable display (perhaps 1/4 HD). You have earbuds in too.
Rocketman
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I for one don't. I think what the rumors are referring to is a "netboot" device over wi-max (and Edge or its replacement) in a handheld form factor.
32gb or so of flash or P-RAM local storage would allow reasobable pre-fetch of 1/4HD and any streams you are following. Computer apps take a small fraction of the storage and bandwidth of video apps. Plenty of room for battery in such a device too per Shuffle.
This addresses the ultra-portable market, the post newton market, the video iPod market (mobile TiVo), the iChat and text message market, and the crackberry replacement market.
Think about it. You are talking with Apple's or your server, or a Google server of all your content of all types on a device capable of mobile broadband and reasonable display (perhaps 1/4 HD). You have earbuds in too.
Rocketman
wizard
Mar 24, 02:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
Don't fall for anandtechs crap. Those tests where designed to make Intels GPU look good. The minute you do anything demanding the GPU falls flat on it's face. By this I mean turn on all the latest features to get the best on screen results.
For many other reasons I don't consider anandtech to be a credible web site. It has become an extension of Intels marketing team. A lot of people don't want to hear that but there is a trend in the articles that indicate that they have become a fan site and have lost the ability to report objectively.
twoodcc
Nov 9, 05:12 PM
We just had a monster record day, 430k points!
We now average 258k per day, slightly above our current rank.
very nice! we should move into #58 in less than a week hopefully
We now average 258k per day, slightly above our current rank.
very nice! we should move into #58 in less than a week hopefully
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Erwin-Br
May 2, 05:28 PM
No, Microsoft have not got it right. There should be no need for a specific tool to uninstall applications. applications should be self-contained and be deletable with the press of a button�
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
Uhm, not every app can be self-contained, and it's even in Apple's documentation that you need to store your plists OUTSIDE of the App container and in the Library folder instead.
And that makes sense, because for example, there are apps that need to save settings. If you store these settings inside the app, the next time your user updates it the settings are overwritten.
I hate it how dragging a Mac App to the trashcan leaves plists and other files scattered around.
Many applications work this way on Mac, some developers still put related files into various other locations though unfortunately...
Uhm, not every app can be self-contained, and it's even in Apple's documentation that you need to store your plists OUTSIDE of the App container and in the Library folder instead.
And that makes sense, because for example, there are apps that need to save settings. If you store these settings inside the app, the next time your user updates it the settings are overwritten.
I hate it how dragging a Mac App to the trashcan leaves plists and other files scattered around.
DewGuy1999
Feb 25, 02:48 PM
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac50/tadziodlu/IMG_1442.jpg
^ I Like! ^
^ I Like! ^
quadgirl
Sep 1, 02:04 PM
Merom is 64 bit enabled, IIRC
So is Conroe
So is Conroe
Lukeit
Mar 31, 08:56 PM
Contestual menu to "Dictionary" has been restored and is working nicely with a beautiful smooth animation... try double clicking on a word and then right click to bring up the contextual menu and then "look up in dictionary"...
I'm glad it's working again
Too bad the "Set desktop picture" isn't working instead... it was in previous build, but ain't in this... anyone has a fix for it?
I'm glad it's working again
Too bad the "Set desktop picture" isn't working instead... it was in previous build, but ain't in this... anyone has a fix for it?
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:46 AM
Faster processors, I'll take those of course. Blu-Ray? Hell no, I don't want that turd. Pretty much every format Sony has ever come up with is dead, just look at the UMD now, its a joke.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
UMD wasn't supposed to be a new standard in anything. With the MD, they tried to create new audio players and even a new drive for hte computer, and it was a good format( unlike most sony formats) but since sony was the only one using it.... well.... it went the way of the dinosoars..
but UMD was never like MD in that they tried pushing it on many fronts, just for PSP. And I think its fairly sucessful for only pertainging to PSP owners.
I'll pass on that MPAA sponsored DRM ladden expensive dog turd.
UMD wasn't supposed to be a new standard in anything. With the MD, they tried to create new audio players and even a new drive for hte computer, and it was a good format( unlike most sony formats) but since sony was the only one using it.... well.... it went the way of the dinosoars..
but UMD was never like MD in that they tried pushing it on many fronts, just for PSP. And I think its fairly sucessful for only pertainging to PSP owners.
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Echo toxin
Sep 6, 06:58 AM
I suspect it's the rest of the stores doing whatever the US one did yesterday - i.e. no visible change!
jxyama
Mar 31, 07:01 AM
How about three options....
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
1) I was thinking of a cut down emac style for the 1st time, Dad and Mums, Student, Low income buyers. (eg: basic cut down version)
2) An expandable machine based on the above design (eg: middle of the road - same chip as 3 but much lower specs)
3) Macs for the professionals...and 2nd or 3rd time computer buyers (eg: high spec/price - Higher spec chip than 2)
problem is, what do you cut down in #1 and still make profit? it's clear that dirt cheap computer market is something apple's not interested in. they believe it makes no economic sense. apple is not a charity organization, it is NOT on some mission to spread the goodness of Mac OS... if they don't see an economic merit in offering dirt cheap Macs, they won't, just like any other businesses.
eMac is not meant to be cheap. iMac is not meant to be cheap. they are meant to be all-in-one. if you know enough to foresee that you may need to upgrade in the future, you get a PowerMac because all-in-one is not for you. if you want a cheap, upgradable machine, then, unfortunately, you are not within apple's target market. thus far, apple has been doing well with this philosophy and who's to tell them to change? (do note that "customers" wanting dirt cheap machines have far less economic leverage because, well, they are cheap. if $800 is too much for a complete computer/OS/bundled software, then nevermind what dell's offering, apple believes they are ok without catering to you. if $400 is your budget, then apple believes it won't matter to you whether you get a dell or a Mac. if you want a Mac for sure, apple is betting that you will put down $400 more and get an eMac.)
even if apple offered custom upgrade parts (and only apple parts will work with Macs - otherwise, people will just go out and buy stock parts), i doubt they will be well received - they will be "overpriced" afterall, just like their computers are "overpriced" especially according to these "cheap" customers.
apb3
Aug 16, 12:21 PM
there is a destinct difference between 'sharing' and 'synching'.
Exactly! Now maybe you see my first point.
And, your "solution" to fingerprinting libs could, very well I believe, impact this other distinct feature.
It makes no sense to "share" from an iPod (or to one for that matter) - costs are too high as pointed out ad nauseum (see above posts yet to be refuted).
Making it an iPod w/ AirTunes would cannibalize sales of ATEs and also - again - be too expensive from a power standpoint unless you tether your iPod to a charger defeating one of the great bonus points of wireless. Or get a dock for the TV - oh wait, you've again made the "wireless" not so wireless - and redundant...
Exactly! Now maybe you see my first point.
And, your "solution" to fingerprinting libs could, very well I believe, impact this other distinct feature.
It makes no sense to "share" from an iPod (or to one for that matter) - costs are too high as pointed out ad nauseum (see above posts yet to be refuted).
Making it an iPod w/ AirTunes would cannibalize sales of ATEs and also - again - be too expensive from a power standpoint unless you tether your iPod to a charger defeating one of the great bonus points of wireless. Or get a dock for the TV - oh wait, you've again made the "wireless" not so wireless - and redundant...
ssspinball
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
I'm a satisfied iPhone 4 owner, but what CR is doing is perfectly reasonable/logical. Kudos to them.
ChrisA
Jul 18, 03:28 PM
How many of you who buy DVDs watch them more then once? More then twice? More than 20 times? Ok I've bought videos for my kids whaen they were in preschool nd they watched the same video 20 times in a row over a two week priod. So I'll aks "how many adults would want to watch the same DVD multiple times?" I figure almost no one would. So why buy a video. Renting seems the best. So now what you do is find a rental outfit that has the best terms
Apple will have the problem of balancing video quality with download times. I think a DVD quality feature film can be compressed down to 1GB. That's hours of time for most people so I doubt they will ofer that quality. So who wants to watch a poor quality movie? Someone I'm sure won't care and all Apple needs is 0.1% of the market to sell millions
Apple will have the problem of balancing video quality with download times. I think a DVD quality feature film can be compressed down to 1GB. That's hours of time for most people so I doubt they will ofer that quality. So who wants to watch a poor quality movie? Someone I'm sure won't care and all Apple needs is 0.1% of the market to sell millions
BoyBach
Nov 29, 02:28 PM
Andy Neff also writes "Apple noted that it has a number of products currently in development that are likely to be introduced over several years."
I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
gakh
Oct 23, 03:00 PM
I'll probably be waiting awhile, but I won't be purchasing a MBP until it has the Core 2 Quadro, built-in bootable flash memory for quicker booting times, and a hard drive that can be easily swapped out like the MB line currently has. It makes more sense to me to have a Professional line of notebooks with a hard drive that can be replaced easily than having consumer notebooks with this feature. After a user returns with my company's shared notebook, I could simply swap out the HD with a cleanly imaged HD to give to the next user. Why would the average home user or a non-tech college student with a MB need to swap out their drives through the battery compartment, but not a professional user? Steve - I'm not asking for a lot here.
Until I see these features or at least two of the three, I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade just yet.
Gene Huller
http://genehuller.com
Until I see these features or at least two of the three, I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade just yet.
Gene Huller
http://genehuller.com
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:56 AM
Ah, great to see another person in their 30s who still very much enjoys the freedom and pleasures of the road. :D
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
ranviper
Jan 5, 12:21 AM
My jeep is currently in shop getting
1) new tires
2) oil and filter change
3) new brakes
4) inspection
It's an 05' Liberty 4WD and I love the thing. Ill clean it up and post some pics tomorrow. :cool:
1) new tires
2) oil and filter change
3) new brakes
4) inspection
It's an 05' Liberty 4WD and I love the thing. Ill clean it up and post some pics tomorrow. :cool:
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:41 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.No.
haysoos123
Apr 13, 02:07 AM
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
True, but why try to use iMovie for a quick edit in the first place? It's not really made for you, and its basic workflow is certainly not made for you. You should use what you can use, even for your home movies. Just because FCP is more advanced doesn't mean you can't also use it for very simple things.
Count me as excited for this release. As far as I know, they haven't said they would remove key features, but these updates to 64-bit and core usage enhancements have been overdue. For all you guys claiming it's "not pro" ... have you used it? How do you know that from these few details?
We don't know anything about the Suite offerings, so any bitching on that front is premature. I hope they keep Color and make a great update to Motion. The smoother color controls inside FCP will be a boon for basic things... like you need it to look presentable for cut reviews. Color is great to have around for the integrated post houses and for indies, but we have to remember that FCP is an editing program first and foremost. I will continue to take my bigger projects in for color timing on daVincis with great colorists. But for my lower-budget stuff where that's not in the cards, I hope they throw us a bone.
True, but why try to use iMovie for a quick edit in the first place? It's not really made for you, and its basic workflow is certainly not made for you. You should use what you can use, even for your home movies. Just because FCP is more advanced doesn't mean you can't also use it for very simple things.
Count me as excited for this release. As far as I know, they haven't said they would remove key features, but these updates to 64-bit and core usage enhancements have been overdue. For all you guys claiming it's "not pro" ... have you used it? How do you know that from these few details?
We don't know anything about the Suite offerings, so any bitching on that front is premature. I hope they keep Color and make a great update to Motion. The smoother color controls inside FCP will be a boon for basic things... like you need it to look presentable for cut reviews. Color is great to have around for the integrated post houses and for indies, but we have to remember that FCP is an editing program first and foremost. I will continue to take my bigger projects in for color timing on daVincis with great colorists. But for my lower-budget stuff where that's not in the cards, I hope they throw us a bone.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 5, 04:39 PM
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
There is some overlap, but it's true that cetane ratings are lower in the US - I think they are mostly 40-50 or so, whereas the cetane rating in most European diesel is more likely to be between 50-60.
It's possible to raise the cetane rating with additives, but the fact of the matter is that European diesel allows higher performance in small diesel engines. Also, I have read somewhere that biodiesels tend to have higher cetane ratings.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
There is some overlap, but it's true that cetane ratings are lower in the US - I think they are mostly 40-50 or so, whereas the cetane rating in most European diesel is more likely to be between 50-60.
It's possible to raise the cetane rating with additives, but the fact of the matter is that European diesel allows higher performance in small diesel engines. Also, I have read somewhere that biodiesels tend to have higher cetane ratings.
KnightWRX
Jun 22, 07:50 PM
Touch interfaces don't NECESSARILY mean touchscreen interfaces.
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
There are lots of ways this could be useful. For example: touch input in a desktop environment could be useful for manipulating or selecting MULTIPLE buttons/sliders/whatever independently, and at the same time � which you can't do with a mouse.
iOS apps are designed for touchscreen operations. A trackpad would fail miserably as an input device for these. Think about it, how do you know where on screen you are touching if you're not directly touching the screen. Trackpads work because of the cursor indication the position on screen. Touchscreens don't require cursors because you are "directly" manipulating graphical objects.
It just doesn't translate well to one another.
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
There are lots of ways this could be useful. For example: touch input in a desktop environment could be useful for manipulating or selecting MULTIPLE buttons/sliders/whatever independently, and at the same time � which you can't do with a mouse.
iOS apps are designed for touchscreen operations. A trackpad would fail miserably as an input device for these. Think about it, how do you know where on screen you are touching if you're not directly touching the screen. Trackpads work because of the cursor indication the position on screen. Touchscreens don't require cursors because you are "directly" manipulating graphical objects.
It just doesn't translate well to one another.