VeganBryan
Sep 1, 12:47 PM
if this turns out to be true, here's my prediction on the pricing:
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
Uofmtiger
Jan 11, 10:03 PM
@hobbyrennfahrer:
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
I was intending on getting a 335i coupe and decided to take the 135i for a spin for kicks (it was the year they came out). While they run about the same speed, the 135i just felt quicker. I ended up with the 135i vert ( pic in old thread). I have had two 3 series before, so this was just a change of pace.
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
I was intending on getting a 335i coupe and decided to take the 135i for a spin for kicks (it was the year they came out). While they run about the same speed, the 135i just felt quicker. I ended up with the 135i vert ( pic in old thread). I have had two 3 series before, so this was just a change of pace.
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
TalonFlyer
Sep 14, 10:48 AM
Does the iPhone have an inherent design issue with regards to antenna performance. The answer is, absolutely YES. Does the bumper mitigate this issue, in my experience it does, however only a marginal amount.
I have dropped calls every day, in places where I would have near full signal if I was not holding the phone. I have 3G data issues, especially in the fringe areas where I did not have an issue with my 3Gs.
The iPhone is a great device and I agree that consumer reports is splitting hairs with the antenna issue.
Apple agree's there is a problem or they would not have given away bumpers to everyone.
Fortunately, I use my iPhone as a phone only about 20% of the time, so 80% of my use is great. The other 20% is only a problem about 1 in 7 calls.
So, while it is a little inconvenient when a call drops when I hold the phone in that way, or short data interruptions on 3G from time-to-time, overall I get a lot done with the iPhone.
I do look forward to changing my iPhone to a newer device at the first reasonable opportunity, primarily because of the antenna issue.
I have dropped calls every day, in places where I would have near full signal if I was not holding the phone. I have 3G data issues, especially in the fringe areas where I did not have an issue with my 3Gs.
The iPhone is a great device and I agree that consumer reports is splitting hairs with the antenna issue.
Apple agree's there is a problem or they would not have given away bumpers to everyone.
Fortunately, I use my iPhone as a phone only about 20% of the time, so 80% of my use is great. The other 20% is only a problem about 1 in 7 calls.
So, while it is a little inconvenient when a call drops when I hold the phone in that way, or short data interruptions on 3G from time-to-time, overall I get a lot done with the iPhone.
I do look forward to changing my iPhone to a newer device at the first reasonable opportunity, primarily because of the antenna issue.
bigmc6000
Jan 11, 08:39 PM
I don't see the benefit of a MacBook Slim.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Benefit? I would buy one! :) Honestly tho - I don't want a 15" laptop. I'm on a 12" PB and my sister has a 15". While it's cool and looks awesome it's huge (relatively speaking). One of the biggest things I find is portability. I can sit on a plane, have my laptop out and there's still plenty of room for a drink, it's great. I really wouldn't mind having an external optical drive as I use one about once or twice a month. It'd be fine to just shove it in the bag and have it with you if you need it. Actually, I would prefer that over it eating space in my laptop. So is that convincing enough?
1 thing tho - it has to come with the external drive STANDARD. I'm not paying extra for it - that'd just be really really annoying.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Benefit? I would buy one! :) Honestly tho - I don't want a 15" laptop. I'm on a 12" PB and my sister has a 15". While it's cool and looks awesome it's huge (relatively speaking). One of the biggest things I find is portability. I can sit on a plane, have my laptop out and there's still plenty of room for a drink, it's great. I really wouldn't mind having an external optical drive as I use one about once or twice a month. It'd be fine to just shove it in the bag and have it with you if you need it. Actually, I would prefer that over it eating space in my laptop. So is that convincing enough?
1 thing tho - it has to come with the external drive STANDARD. I'm not paying extra for it - that'd just be really really annoying.
rmhop81
Sep 7, 05:41 PM
well the problem is that sub accounts cannot exist without the main account and main account has to be renewed every year. so this essentially means i cannot use family pack by myself for 5 years.
i never said that u could go 5 years off one family pack. i simply posted those bc people were complaining about apple's price....newegg is cheaper so order from there for the exact same product....
i never said that u could go 5 years off one family pack. i simply posted those bc people were complaining about apple's price....newegg is cheaper so order from there for the exact same product....
Multimedia
Nov 18, 11:04 AM
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. :confused: I'm kind of anti-H.264 because of how bloated the file sizes get when you use that format and because many viewers don't have H.264 players outside the Mac community. I'd rather target a file size and/or bit rate with good old fashioned universally viewable 2-pass FFmpeg encoding than not be able to do so for an H.264 encode.
My point that Handbrake could use up to 3 cores was that you could have that happening while encoding a DVD image with Toast using another 4 cores if you had an 8-core Mac without a performace-speed hit. As soon as a third process is instigated, all the programs would have to share restricted core limits but get a bunch of stuff done without us having to baby sit the queue.
I am confused by what you think about encoding 4 programs simultaneously vs. one alone. 4 simultaneously will take longer but be possilbe on the 8-core while much slower on the 4-core Macs. While one on a 4-core will do fine by itself, problem is as soon as you start doing anything else, it's speed is compromized while in an 8-core system that would-should not be the case. Does that make any sense?
ezekielrage_99
Aug 27, 07:33 PM
If they bring out a core2duo mac mini it will be faster than my 18month old power mac.
cant see it happening, they might go for a faster core duo in the mac mini and macbook then core 2 duo in iMac and Macbook pro
I would have said the same about the Mac Mini getting a Core Duo about 10 months ago.
cant see it happening, they might go for a faster core duo in the mac mini and macbook then core 2 duo in iMac and Macbook pro
I would have said the same about the Mac Mini getting a Core Duo about 10 months ago.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:13 PM
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
iJawn108
Jan 11, 09:11 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable. i am willing to bet the phase "there's something in the air" is referring to the soon to be announced rental service, not a piece of hardware. apple is making an obvious attempt to eliminate physical mediums altogether, first cds with mp3s and now dvds with downloadable vids (both via the itunes music store). everything will be available "in the air" or "up in the cloud," if you will. i'll be damned if they name their next product the "macbook air." c'mon people...
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
Aperture 2.0 via iTunes... or maybe it just reefers to iPhone/iPod Touch apps.
Or maybe it referes to a notebook that doesnt have a replaceable battery, though the new macbooks will be used as frisbees.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:27 PM
I love my 20" iMac, so I can only imagine that with 3 more inches to love!
I detect some "latent tendecies."
I detect some "latent tendecies."
SvenSvenson
May 3, 03:25 AM
But they could have made it much better, intuitive and easy. It doesn't mean that going from iOS to MacOSX, you are going to deal with the computers, the same old way.
People are not pointing with fingers and now they have an extra real estate. A mouse has both right click and left click which in my opinion, every computer user knows about.
For a second, forget that you have never seen iOS, but you want to delete the app from launchpad, the only way that comes to your mind is either:
holding the app and dropping into trash OR
right click -> delete
It doesn't have to be the same, seriously.
Actually, in my experience, a lot of nontechnical people DON't use right-click. Also, if you're new to the Mac, (and possibly not very computer literate), dragging an application to the trash to uninstall it is not very intuitive (if you even realise in the first place that applications should be uninstalled).
As the whole Launchpad is new, I personally think that it's OK that it operates differently too. I actually quite like the idea of it and am interested in trying it.
Steve
People are not pointing with fingers and now they have an extra real estate. A mouse has both right click and left click which in my opinion, every computer user knows about.
For a second, forget that you have never seen iOS, but you want to delete the app from launchpad, the only way that comes to your mind is either:
holding the app and dropping into trash OR
right click -> delete
It doesn't have to be the same, seriously.
Actually, in my experience, a lot of nontechnical people DON't use right-click. Also, if you're new to the Mac, (and possibly not very computer literate), dragging an application to the trash to uninstall it is not very intuitive (if you even realise in the first place that applications should be uninstalled).
As the whole Launchpad is new, I personally think that it's OK that it operates differently too. I actually quite like the idea of it and am interested in trying it.
Steve
slb
Aug 24, 09:26 PM
Core 2s will be nice, but if you've already got a Core-based Mac now, I wouldn't rush to sell it. The Meroms coming out are an "initial" version according to Intel, designed to be pin-compatible as an easy replacement for the Yonahs. But next year, Intel will be releasing a new platform called Santa Rosa that the Meroms are really designed for, which will increase the frontside bus to really take advantage of the speed of the Meroms, as well as include new WiFi and the "Robson" flash technology for fast-booting.
I suspect we'll see slight case redesigns for Santa Rosa-based Macs. Santa Rosa will be the real Core 2 platform. This year's Meroms are a stopgap.
I suspect we'll see slight case redesigns for Santa Rosa-based Macs. Santa Rosa will be the real Core 2 platform. This year's Meroms are a stopgap.
nagromme
Jul 18, 02:06 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
chrismacguy
Feb 27, 05:21 AM
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
shawnce
Jul 19, 08:19 PM
The article posted:
- Desktops: 614,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 498,000, up 60% from previous quarter
I belive these numbers are for last quarter (note they don't add to 1.3M macs). They should post a correction.
Yup... the correct numbers can be found in this PDF (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf) ... they should be 529,000 and 798,000 respectively.
- Desktops: 614,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 498,000, up 60% from previous quarter
I belive these numbers are for last quarter (note they don't add to 1.3M macs). They should post a correction.
Yup... the correct numbers can be found in this PDF (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf) ... they should be 529,000 and 798,000 respectively.
FireStar
Oct 24, 06:06 PM
$1 cases on eBay is good enough to protect from scratches IMO.
Any case that covers it protects from scratches other than slides, I think. :confused:
We need more of a definition than prevents scratches. That slims it down to most cases.
Any case that covers it protects from scratches other than slides, I think. :confused:
We need more of a definition than prevents scratches. That slims it down to most cases.
Jbook
Jul 13, 11:39 PM
Maybe if there was more media available in blue-ray format, I would be more excited. Anyways, blue-ray player or not, the Mac Pro is gonna be a beast.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 13, 11:42 PM
Meh, Apple came out with that Express Card slot for the MacBook Pro kind of early as well...but I'm with most people in arguing that a blue-ray drive won't see the light of day in Apple computers until early 2007.
Z-Bro
Mar 23, 03:08 AM
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)
I lost my 160gb and I've been waiting for a classic update to buy. There's no chance I'll buy until it updates with a 220 drive so I can put all my videos and music. Let's go Apple!!
I lost my 160gb and I've been waiting for a classic update to buy. There's no chance I'll buy until it updates with a 220 drive so I can put all my videos and music. Let's go Apple!!
cmustin
Nov 24, 11:09 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
I use this same bag. Did you pick it up at an Army surplus store? That's where I got mine.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
I use this same bag. Did you pick it up at an Army surplus store? That's where I got mine.
Primejimbo
Mar 22, 04:49 PM
I will just continue to use my iphone as my ipod like everyone else.......
Sent from my Iphone
I have a classic and an iPhone....
I use both and always will
Sent from my Iphone
I have a classic and an iPhone....
I use both and always will
leosaysfosho
Sep 27, 01:59 PM
so i saw griffin cases shown on the weekly ad, does anyone own them? If so, comments about it would be nice before purchasing!
jgould
Mar 1, 05:42 PM
Some people have ridiculously tidy desks, wheres all your stuff? I wish I could keep my desk as tidy as most of the people on here!
If your one of the people with stupidly tidy desks, does it genuinely look like that all the time? Or did you throw all the stuff on the floor, take the photo and throw it all back again?
The main portion of my desk is clean, the little part off to my left is not. Now if only the rest of the house would be clean like that...
If your one of the people with stupidly tidy desks, does it genuinely look like that all the time? Or did you throw all the stuff on the floor, take the photo and throw it all back again?
The main portion of my desk is clean, the little part off to my left is not. Now if only the rest of the house would be clean like that...
No comments:
Post a Comment