jav6454
Mar 24, 02:50 PM
Why not????
Because we have the 6000 series now....
Because we have the 6000 series now....
toaoc
Mar 25, 07:25 AM
...is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...
*LTD*
Apr 3, 02:00 PM
So we actually need sarcasm tags in forums now. :D
mattcube64
Nov 24, 02:08 AM
Picked up a red Wii today at Walmart. I sold my launch system a long time ago, and have been noticing a lot of good deals on some great titles I've missed over the years. I'm all caught up on purchasing most the PC & 360 games I want, so this would give me a lot of choices for Christmas gifts. Kinda backwards... but whatever. :p
It was the last one at Walmart, so I went ahead and bought it. But I'm keeping it sealed until Friday, to see if I can snag one with a $50 gift card online. If I can, this one will be going back to the store.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5203821726_514fa55e52_b.jpg
It was the last one at Walmart, so I went ahead and bought it. But I'm keeping it sealed until Friday, to see if I can snag one with a $50 gift card online. If I can, this one will be going back to the store.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5203821726_514fa55e52_b.jpg
samb30
Jun 23, 06:35 AM
Maybe its something to do with the new apple tv which supposedly runs IOS4, a replacement to front row on the imac? You could use your i device as a controller like you should be able to do with the new atv, making it possible to use all the same features/games as on your iphone/pad but displayed up on your larger screen. prefect for movies and a new games console of sorts.
This seems like a very logical and usable implementation on the imac, macbooks etc.
This seems like a very logical and usable implementation on the imac, macbooks etc.
Flowbee
Nov 29, 01:56 PM
...And I just got my new dual-tuner Tivo yesterday. :o
Anyway, I'm not betting that "iTV" will be a Tivo repalcement (yet), but more of a TV interface for your downloaded video content, and hopefully some streaming video websites. It'd be nice to browse through YouTube while sitting on the sofa, though the picture quality might be scary on my 32" set.
Anyway, I'm not betting that "iTV" will be a Tivo repalcement (yet), but more of a TV interface for your downloaded video content, and hopefully some streaming video websites. It'd be nice to browse through YouTube while sitting on the sofa, though the picture quality might be scary on my 32" set.
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."
Billy Boo Bob
Jun 23, 09:38 AM
It's amazing how many people fear that "All you'll be able to do is touch your screen to operate this thing"... "I need a mouse and keyboard"... "My arm will get tired"...
Do any of you whiners understand what a LAYER means? On top of good ol' normal OS X a developer can incorporate parts of an app that can (not necessarily must) be operated by touch. The iOS is NOT going to be the only way to operate it. You can still operate all of your favorite apps with a keyboard and mouse all day long.
"I don't want fingerprints on my screen!".... Well then don't run any apps that are touch enabled. Run any and all of your keyboard/mouse apps you want to all day long.
And... Have you ever been to a bar and seen those coin operated touch screen card game thingies? I worked at a bar for many years and I've seen people play them for hours at a time. It's not as bad as everyone fears.
I would like very much to see a mix of traditional OS X and iOS touch capabilities. I see kids software selling like mad. I've been working on a custom page layout app for a classifieds type of paper. Some touch for Drag-N-Drop operations in parts of it would be a welcome addition.
Do any of you whiners understand what a LAYER means? On top of good ol' normal OS X a developer can incorporate parts of an app that can (not necessarily must) be operated by touch. The iOS is NOT going to be the only way to operate it. You can still operate all of your favorite apps with a keyboard and mouse all day long.
"I don't want fingerprints on my screen!".... Well then don't run any apps that are touch enabled. Run any and all of your keyboard/mouse apps you want to all day long.
And... Have you ever been to a bar and seen those coin operated touch screen card game thingies? I worked at a bar for many years and I've seen people play them for hours at a time. It's not as bad as everyone fears.
I would like very much to see a mix of traditional OS X and iOS touch capabilities. I see kids software selling like mad. I've been working on a custom page layout app for a classifieds type of paper. Some touch for Drag-N-Drop operations in parts of it would be a welcome addition.
EagerDragon
Jul 19, 07:43 PM
Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
Vista sucks, there is very little incentive for people to upgrade. Leopard will ROCK, is a lot faster then Tiger and has a lot of new functionality. They are not even going to show all the stuff under the hood at the presentation.
Windows Vista is "Asta La Vista" even the virus guys say that it wont be that secured either. Why should people upgrade? Most sales will come from new machines, people will get Vista by default.....Some time mid year, not in January BTW. Little to no sales in the first year for Vista. Large corporations take 2 to 3 years to deploy, and a lot of school are considering Macs running windows, so that is also good for the hardware side.
Redmond has a lot of problems including morale, and lack of creativity.
Our club is growing and is growing fast. We rock!!!!!
Vista sucks, there is very little incentive for people to upgrade. Leopard will ROCK, is a lot faster then Tiger and has a lot of new functionality. They are not even going to show all the stuff under the hood at the presentation.
Windows Vista is "Asta La Vista" even the virus guys say that it wont be that secured either. Why should people upgrade? Most sales will come from new machines, people will get Vista by default.....Some time mid year, not in January BTW. Little to no sales in the first year for Vista. Large corporations take 2 to 3 years to deploy, and a lot of school are considering Macs running windows, so that is also good for the hardware side.
Redmond has a lot of problems including morale, and lack of creativity.
Our club is growing and is growing fast. We rock!!!!!
japanime
Apr 3, 04:26 AM
good point, he doesn't have an ipad he is just trolling.
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
I have an original iPad. It has had backlight bleeding since the day I received it. Several months ago I brought it to an Apple Store Genius Bar and they told me it was normal and not something for which they would issue a replacement. Guess they lied to me. Oh well...
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
I have an original iPad. It has had backlight bleeding since the day I received it. Several months ago I brought it to an Apple Store Genius Bar and they told me it was normal and not something for which they would issue a replacement. Guess they lied to me. Oh well...
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 17, 03:34 PM
so the iphone 4 is their highest rated phone ever, based on their tests and they do not recommend it. Doesn't that mean they need to fix their rating system?
No, it means the product has an intermittent defect unrelated to the otherwise stellar performance.
Point is that it IS their best phone. So Apple set out to make the best phone and CR's own testing validates that!
You don't seem to know the difference between a terminal defect and a high performing product. If a Toyota vehicle tests better than anything else out there in every normal category yet has a defect that while rare could kill you (i.e. no brakes or massive unintended acceleration), some readers JUST MIGHT want to know about that defect. And a magazine could in no good conscience recommend a vehicle that has a potentially fatal flaw even if in every other area it's wonderful. While the iPhone is not a "fatal" flaw, it is a potentially terminal one. If the thing is constantly dropping calls simply because you naturally tend to cover the antenna with your hand (for whatever reason), you should probably be aware of this. Given all previous iPhones did not have this problem, it SHOULD be pointed out so consumers can make an INFORMED DECISION.
But you and the other apologists on here (and that's being nice) seem to think they should ignore massive defects or that their tests are somehow flawed even though this is not a normal "testable" function. It's an intermittent DEFECT that Apple admits exists yet they do not seem to want to fix. If Toyota came out and said "we know some of our cars will potentially accelerate out of control, but we've decided we won't fix it but instead will wait for you to call us after you've discovered YOUR car has that problem" (assuming you survive it when it happens to you), I think there would be a more than a bit of uproar.... Oh wait. THAT is EXACTLY what they did and that's exactly what happened. :rolleyes:
Don't worry. I don't expect you or any of the other Apple apologists to "get" it. You're too in love with Steve and Apple to think logically at this point. All you know is that people are ragging on the love of your life and you want it to stop!
You like others who have bought into the google backed media campaign are totally dismissive of the top rating the phone actually got from CR and only focusing on the cannot recommend aspect. If CR cannot recommend their best product, then their rating system is flawed. End of story. Why should apple recall the top rated product in history!
So now there's a Google conspiracy as well? LOL. :D
All it comes down to is that defective products should be fixed by the companies that make them. Apple doesn't want to do it because they are greedy. They don't want to support their computers for more than two years these days for the same reason. They are greedy. They want you to keep buying more products more often. They don't care about long-term customers anymore because they want repeat short-term customers instead. Just wait for iPhone 5. That one will fix it. iTunes 10 is buggy as heck and crashes your computer all the time? Just wait for iTunes 11 to fix it, but be prepared to buy a new computer to use it because it won't work on anything older than Snow Leopard. Sorry, but that's not good business and it's starting to alienate some of us big time.
so what you are saying is that if you want to buy the best smart phone according to consumer reports it would be the iphone 4.
so you are agreeing that the iphone 4 is the best smart phone out there.
because if you don't believe it is the best smart phone, then it means you don't agree with consumer reports. So you are in the same boat with those who do not agree with consumer reports...
so you either defend consumer reports and also agree the iphone 4 is the best phone ever or disagree with them, which puts you in the same boat as those who you accuse of being less than you are.
apple set out to make the best phone....according to consumer reports they succeeded. accept that fact and move on.
Ok, based on your double post and complete illogic I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your age is rather, shall we say, very young because what you are saying makes about as much sense as saying someone who is against drunk driving is against alcohol as well because they're so obviously mutually exclusive. :rolleyes:
No, it means the product has an intermittent defect unrelated to the otherwise stellar performance.
Point is that it IS their best phone. So Apple set out to make the best phone and CR's own testing validates that!
You don't seem to know the difference between a terminal defect and a high performing product. If a Toyota vehicle tests better than anything else out there in every normal category yet has a defect that while rare could kill you (i.e. no brakes or massive unintended acceleration), some readers JUST MIGHT want to know about that defect. And a magazine could in no good conscience recommend a vehicle that has a potentially fatal flaw even if in every other area it's wonderful. While the iPhone is not a "fatal" flaw, it is a potentially terminal one. If the thing is constantly dropping calls simply because you naturally tend to cover the antenna with your hand (for whatever reason), you should probably be aware of this. Given all previous iPhones did not have this problem, it SHOULD be pointed out so consumers can make an INFORMED DECISION.
But you and the other apologists on here (and that's being nice) seem to think they should ignore massive defects or that their tests are somehow flawed even though this is not a normal "testable" function. It's an intermittent DEFECT that Apple admits exists yet they do not seem to want to fix. If Toyota came out and said "we know some of our cars will potentially accelerate out of control, but we've decided we won't fix it but instead will wait for you to call us after you've discovered YOUR car has that problem" (assuming you survive it when it happens to you), I think there would be a more than a bit of uproar.... Oh wait. THAT is EXACTLY what they did and that's exactly what happened. :rolleyes:
Don't worry. I don't expect you or any of the other Apple apologists to "get" it. You're too in love with Steve and Apple to think logically at this point. All you know is that people are ragging on the love of your life and you want it to stop!
You like others who have bought into the google backed media campaign are totally dismissive of the top rating the phone actually got from CR and only focusing on the cannot recommend aspect. If CR cannot recommend their best product, then their rating system is flawed. End of story. Why should apple recall the top rated product in history!
So now there's a Google conspiracy as well? LOL. :D
All it comes down to is that defective products should be fixed by the companies that make them. Apple doesn't want to do it because they are greedy. They don't want to support their computers for more than two years these days for the same reason. They are greedy. They want you to keep buying more products more often. They don't care about long-term customers anymore because they want repeat short-term customers instead. Just wait for iPhone 5. That one will fix it. iTunes 10 is buggy as heck and crashes your computer all the time? Just wait for iTunes 11 to fix it, but be prepared to buy a new computer to use it because it won't work on anything older than Snow Leopard. Sorry, but that's not good business and it's starting to alienate some of us big time.
so what you are saying is that if you want to buy the best smart phone according to consumer reports it would be the iphone 4.
so you are agreeing that the iphone 4 is the best smart phone out there.
because if you don't believe it is the best smart phone, then it means you don't agree with consumer reports. So you are in the same boat with those who do not agree with consumer reports...
so you either defend consumer reports and also agree the iphone 4 is the best phone ever or disagree with them, which puts you in the same boat as those who you accuse of being less than you are.
apple set out to make the best phone....according to consumer reports they succeeded. accept that fact and move on.
Ok, based on your double post and complete illogic I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess your age is rather, shall we say, very young because what you are saying makes about as much sense as saying someone who is against drunk driving is against alcohol as well because they're so obviously mutually exclusive. :rolleyes:
nagromme
Sep 14, 11:57 AM
Consumer Reports is making five mistakes:
1. Not doing full-scale testing of the kind antenna engineers have called them out on. They’ve done informal testing—quick and easy, but not the full useful facts their readers deserve. Yes, that kind of testing would need some really expensive facilities and lots of time. So they should at least point out that their tests are very limited and may be misleading.
2. Not publishing stats on how many users actually lose calls over this. They do surveys all the time—how about one comparing the iPhone 4 to other phones in actual use? (Most of the iPhone 4 antenna complaints seem to come from people who don’t own one!)
3. Criticizing only the iPhone, not other phones, for losing signal when gripped wrong. (Which all phones clearly do. Some more, some less. Many of them tell you right in the manual not to “hold it that way!")
4. Exaggerating the problem. Putting a very rare and minor issue, that affects so few, ahead of so many positives that affect everyone: benefits no other phone can touch. How are their flaws (which no case can fix) vs. the iPhone acceptable? And does CR clearly state that they DO recommend the iPhone for case users—which is a huge (maybe the largest) group of phone users?
5. Standing on their ego (or worrying misguidedly about their reputation) and not refining their position when that is clearly called for. Black-and-white controversial simplicity sells mindshare and magazines. But it doesn’t reflect reality, and CR readers deserve better. CR should be willing to back down when they’ve gone too far. Example: “The iPhone 4’s antenna flaws are rarely an issue and it’s the best smartphone we reviewed. But because we don’t know what each buyer will experience, we are only able to fully recommend the iPhone 4 if you also use a case. Luckily, Apple will continue to supply one free of charge on request, so this antenna issue need not affect your calls nor your wallet."
I only trust CR’s large-scale survey data (they seem to be good at that) not their editorial content. They’ve consitently failed to note Apple’s legitimate strengths over the years (ever see an article helping the everyday buyer choose between OS X and Windows?) but never fail to make something out the negatives. That’s not helping an uninformed reader become informed. And it really does seem like an anti-Apple bias sometimes.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
And that kind of preventive mass action makes sense for a product that holds peoples’ lives in its hands every moment of use.
It’s absurd to suggest that Apple should “fix” a problem as though it were widespread, when it’s not. Fixing it when it IS a problem is all that is necessary. And then let the non-iPhone users continue to moan about how bad Apple is treating us contented iPhone users :D They believe a blog wildfire over actual user experience—or at least they enjoy fanning the wildfire?
1. Not doing full-scale testing of the kind antenna engineers have called them out on. They’ve done informal testing—quick and easy, but not the full useful facts their readers deserve. Yes, that kind of testing would need some really expensive facilities and lots of time. So they should at least point out that their tests are very limited and may be misleading.
2. Not publishing stats on how many users actually lose calls over this. They do surveys all the time—how about one comparing the iPhone 4 to other phones in actual use? (Most of the iPhone 4 antenna complaints seem to come from people who don’t own one!)
3. Criticizing only the iPhone, not other phones, for losing signal when gripped wrong. (Which all phones clearly do. Some more, some less. Many of them tell you right in the manual not to “hold it that way!")
4. Exaggerating the problem. Putting a very rare and minor issue, that affects so few, ahead of so many positives that affect everyone: benefits no other phone can touch. How are their flaws (which no case can fix) vs. the iPhone acceptable? And does CR clearly state that they DO recommend the iPhone for case users—which is a huge (maybe the largest) group of phone users?
5. Standing on their ego (or worrying misguidedly about their reputation) and not refining their position when that is clearly called for. Black-and-white controversial simplicity sells mindshare and magazines. But it doesn’t reflect reality, and CR readers deserve better. CR should be willing to back down when they’ve gone too far. Example: “The iPhone 4’s antenna flaws are rarely an issue and it’s the best smartphone we reviewed. But because we don’t know what each buyer will experience, we are only able to fully recommend the iPhone 4 if you also use a case. Luckily, Apple will continue to supply one free of charge on request, so this antenna issue need not affect your calls nor your wallet."
I only trust CR’s large-scale survey data (they seem to be good at that) not their editorial content. They’ve consitently failed to note Apple’s legitimate strengths over the years (ever see an article helping the everyday buyer choose between OS X and Windows?) but never fail to make something out the negatives. That’s not helping an uninformed reader become informed. And it really does seem like an anti-Apple bias sometimes.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
And that kind of preventive mass action makes sense for a product that holds peoples’ lives in its hands every moment of use.
It’s absurd to suggest that Apple should “fix” a problem as though it were widespread, when it’s not. Fixing it when it IS a problem is all that is necessary. And then let the non-iPhone users continue to moan about how bad Apple is treating us contented iPhone users :D They believe a blog wildfire over actual user experience—or at least they enjoy fanning the wildfire?
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
Fine. You all go and apply to work at a post house and put "iMovie" on your resume. See how long it takes for them to laugh you out the door.
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
You're claiming there are ignorant bigots in the industry. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The better qualifier for an editor would be to see some of their work. Someone who can achieve greatness with iMovie probably is a better editor than someone who can achieve the same greatness with FCP.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Even before the reworking you are complaining about it was an HD product, not a DV product. And if you haven't used it, one what basis are you saying it time has come and gone? Prejudice?
On the manufacturing side, the creating side the professional side there are many times complex problems to solve and those problems require more complicated tools.
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
.png "funny wallpapers download")
AppliedVisual
Oct 23, 11:11 AM
I've read that even the current MBP supports 4gigs.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
Unfortunately, the current MBP is restricted to about 3.2GB because of the 32bit CPU *AND* the 32bit i945 chipset. Intel won't have a 64bit mobile chipset until they ship Crestline (the i965 mobile chipset for Santa Rosa). So, unless Crestline is ready early and Apple has some sort of exclusive agreement, the updated MBP still will not allow anyone to use more than approximately 3.2GB of RAM.
In a 32bit system, the 32bit CPUs and/or chipsets can address a total memory capacity of 4GB. But this 4GB address window must account for all memory I/O addresses, BIOS/ROM as well as video memory in addition to the actual RAM heap. That is why when you install 4GB of RAM, you essentially miss out on the last 600 to 800 MB. Also why the C2D/Merom iMac systems can only be configured with up to 3GB of RAM. Apple probably figured they didn't need to sell people RAM that they can't use. Some PC vendors still sell 4GB installed into such systems even though it can't all be used because by installing two matched 2GB modules, the dual-channel performance benefits are there, just not the last 800MB.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
Unfortunately, the current MBP is restricted to about 3.2GB because of the 32bit CPU *AND* the 32bit i945 chipset. Intel won't have a 64bit mobile chipset until they ship Crestline (the i965 mobile chipset for Santa Rosa). So, unless Crestline is ready early and Apple has some sort of exclusive agreement, the updated MBP still will not allow anyone to use more than approximately 3.2GB of RAM.
In a 32bit system, the 32bit CPUs and/or chipsets can address a total memory capacity of 4GB. But this 4GB address window must account for all memory I/O addresses, BIOS/ROM as well as video memory in addition to the actual RAM heap. That is why when you install 4GB of RAM, you essentially miss out on the last 600 to 800 MB. Also why the C2D/Merom iMac systems can only be configured with up to 3GB of RAM. Apple probably figured they didn't need to sell people RAM that they can't use. Some PC vendors still sell 4GB installed into such systems even though it can't all be used because by installing two matched 2GB modules, the dual-channel performance benefits are there, just not the last 800MB.
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.
MrCrowbar
Aug 24, 06:29 PM
One day I'll buy a mini - they look so sweet. And with a C2D they'll go sweet too!
Maybe dual optical drives like the Mac pro. This is getting standard on Macs obviously.
:p
Maybe dual optical drives like the Mac pro. This is getting standard on Macs obviously.
:p
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
This ad makes me want to buy one...
so magical!!!
so magical!!!
stagi
Jul 19, 05:37 PM
Sounds like some pretty sweet things are coming for iTunes, can't wait!
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
lordonuthin
Feb 23, 08:19 PM
ok. now do you have the 2.66 or 2.26 mac pro octo?
2.66
for the i7, what most people do is run linux in a VM and do the bigadv units while also doing gpu units. but i wouldn't do this unless you're running at least around 3.3 ghz. i'm running around 3.6 ghz i think, and i have 2 gpu's going on mine. it slows down the bigadv units, but the gpu's make up for it.
I'm not going to go to all that trouble, VM's seem like kind of a pain.
how are you trying to overclock now? just in the bios? that's basically just how i do it - in the bios. but that will depend on your motherboard
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
2.66
for the i7, what most people do is run linux in a VM and do the bigadv units while also doing gpu units. but i wouldn't do this unless you're running at least around 3.3 ghz. i'm running around 3.6 ghz i think, and i have 2 gpu's going on mine. it slows down the bigadv units, but the gpu's make up for it.
I'm not going to go to all that trouble, VM's seem like kind of a pain.
how are you trying to overclock now? just in the bios? that's basically just how i do it - in the bios. but that will depend on your motherboard
I've just tried it in bios without much luck.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 01:34 PM
All this said, I've never needed any additive myself, car is never garaged, and has never failed to start as of yet.
A neighbor of mine drives a ratty looking 4th generation Jetta TDI. She has it on an engine block heater, not sure what she does to prevent gelling but it works just fine, and we've had sustained temperatures well below -10F.
So while it may require steps to be taken to prevent fuel gelling, diesels will run just fine at very low temperatures.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
My brother has a Mk1 3-door hatch Focus with the 2.0L Zetec four, and while I'm not a huge fan of the driving position I think is a great little car and miles ahead of what GM was making at the time. Unfortunately, Ford kept the Mk1 for sale in the US (with only facelifts) for way too long, and towards the end of its run it was pretty dated. The new one is a very nice car, and the arrival of the Fiesta really strengthens Ford's small-car lineup.
I imagine that Ford will be keeping an eye on GM's diesel Cruze (if it happens) to gauge popularity. A diesel Focus or Fiesta would be a good addition to the lineup. I may be wrong, but I think that Ford uses their own diesel engine in the European Focus.
A neighbor of mine drives a ratty looking 4th generation Jetta TDI. She has it on an engine block heater, not sure what she does to prevent gelling but it works just fine, and we've had sustained temperatures well below -10F.
So while it may require steps to be taken to prevent fuel gelling, diesels will run just fine at very low temperatures.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
My brother has a Mk1 3-door hatch Focus with the 2.0L Zetec four, and while I'm not a huge fan of the driving position I think is a great little car and miles ahead of what GM was making at the time. Unfortunately, Ford kept the Mk1 for sale in the US (with only facelifts) for way too long, and towards the end of its run it was pretty dated. The new one is a very nice car, and the arrival of the Fiesta really strengthens Ford's small-car lineup.
I imagine that Ford will be keeping an eye on GM's diesel Cruze (if it happens) to gauge popularity. A diesel Focus or Fiesta would be a good addition to the lineup. I may be wrong, but I think that Ford uses their own diesel engine in the European Focus.
sbrage2000
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
Some definite improvements but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "jaw-dropper". I was really hoping to see more about how it integrates with the rest of the suite.
CyberBob859
Jun 22, 12:58 PM
Then what was the point in the iPad?
I think the question should be - what would be the point of the iOS layer?
It's not like OS/X has no program support. Which would people rather run - the full OS/X iWork programs or the limited iOS versions on their desktop? And as others pointed out - some iOS programs require hardware support (GPS, accelerometers, etc) that an iMac wouldn't have or need.
iOS as a replacement for Dashboard? Maybe. I can see some apps replacing Dashboard programs and being more useful.
iOS could be used as a "front-end" for touch and gesture support, much the same way as HP has their touch-designed programs on top of Windows 7 for their all-in-one Touchsmart PC's.
Instead of touching the screen, the rumored Magic Pad, along with the current Magic Mouse brings full gesture support to iMac via the iOS layer. So, you would have a Magic Pad, a small wireless keyboard, and the Magic Mouse in front of you, and navigate that way.
But - will iAds come to the desktop now?
I think the question should be - what would be the point of the iOS layer?
It's not like OS/X has no program support. Which would people rather run - the full OS/X iWork programs or the limited iOS versions on their desktop? And as others pointed out - some iOS programs require hardware support (GPS, accelerometers, etc) that an iMac wouldn't have or need.
iOS as a replacement for Dashboard? Maybe. I can see some apps replacing Dashboard programs and being more useful.
iOS could be used as a "front-end" for touch and gesture support, much the same way as HP has their touch-designed programs on top of Windows 7 for their all-in-one Touchsmart PC's.
Instead of touching the screen, the rumored Magic Pad, along with the current Magic Mouse brings full gesture support to iMac via the iOS layer. So, you would have a Magic Pad, a small wireless keyboard, and the Magic Mouse in front of you, and navigate that way.
But - will iAds come to the desktop now?
jeanlain
Apr 6, 05:51 PM
I can't even edit an audio clip in quicklime (10.1). This looks like a regression because Quicktime X allows trimming in 10.6.
EDIT: scratch that, I wasn't looking in the right menu. It works fine.
EDIT: scratch that, I wasn't looking in the right menu. It works fine.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น