NebulaClash
Sep 24, 09:40 PM
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
Object-X
Nov 27, 03:20 PM
I don't understand this. Apple has carried a 20" monitor as their low end for two years. Why offer something even smaller after so long? This seems like a step backwards. Why not reduce the 20" to $399 and lower the price of the other two? Dell is putting major price pressure on Apple with their monitors; though they are not as good looking, the price has no doubt won over many would be buyers...not me of course. :p
Fuchal
Mar 22, 03:49 PM
Just curious, Why?
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
jeffu
Nov 29, 09:06 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I agree completely - yes the Zune has some issues and yes it's a bit too big right now and yes I love my Ipod - but I do think the competition is a good thing - the graphics on the Zune are really sweet! Come on, Apple is the graphics champ and looking at the menus for iPod compared to Zune it's easy to see Apple could and should be doing more.
Also the screen - great idea to have it rotate .
Like I said - still love the ipod, but would like to see some of these the enhancements roll over to the apple side.
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I agree completely - yes the Zune has some issues and yes it's a bit too big right now and yes I love my Ipod - but I do think the competition is a good thing - the graphics on the Zune are really sweet! Come on, Apple is the graphics champ and looking at the menus for iPod compared to Zune it's easy to see Apple could and should be doing more.
Also the screen - great idea to have it rotate .
Like I said - still love the ipod, but would like to see some of these the enhancements roll over to the apple side.
direzz
Aug 16, 08:06 PM
i dont really think the ipod needs to be updated.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
its great the way it is, and it hasnt even been a year since it was released!
why are you all on this idea of an ipod update?
the ipod isnt a computer that needs a new processor and faster components.
mp3 files just play.
jgould
Feb 19, 08:09 PM
Hasn't changed too much this time around:
http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011_s.jpg (http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011.jpg)
I like the wall paper... Which Orbiter and where'd ya get it? :)
http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011_s.jpg (http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011.jpg)
I like the wall paper... Which Orbiter and where'd ya get it? :)
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 09:34 AM
Yup.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
phht...I'm pretty sure the reason why there is "international action" this time is because it's not only easy to justify, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the US "going in" will result in victory. And this is a tiny weak nation too. At least Iraq was able to off a decent amount of "coalition forces" even though it's still a pin prick. And since Lybia has a lot of oil, "other nations" will be really easy to be persuaded to "save lives of rebels" or whatever. Heck, even the "French" are throwing on the gloves. Which I'm sure many ppl feel we should just shoot them out of the air ourselves. :p I mean, the Frence aren't going to miss out on this one, especially since it's like a given victory with "air support".
I mean, this "cease fire" that's going on. Why is there no ceasfire? Because the West doesn't want it. It's already in motion. Whether it be jamming communications or "rebels staging attacks on themselves for show", it's clear that we've made the decision to go for blood...civilians or not in harms way...to put the regime WE want, into power. They aren't "peaceful"...they look just like those in that picture above in the truck. They struck a deal. Oil for help. And the Frence sadly are apparently in on it too.
You know I am almost always critical of US military action, but in this case...
It might need to be taken.
We do have an obligation to stop atrocities if we are aware of them.
That said, this needs to be an international action, not like the "coalition of the willing" that went into Iraq. In fact, id prefer it if the US was NOT the main force by any stretch. We should give plenty of support, but we should be careful to not give the impression that we are taking the primary role in another conflict.
phht...I'm pretty sure the reason why there is "international action" this time is because it's not only easy to justify, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the US "going in" will result in victory. And this is a tiny weak nation too. At least Iraq was able to off a decent amount of "coalition forces" even though it's still a pin prick. And since Lybia has a lot of oil, "other nations" will be really easy to be persuaded to "save lives of rebels" or whatever. Heck, even the "French" are throwing on the gloves. Which I'm sure many ppl feel we should just shoot them out of the air ourselves. :p I mean, the Frence aren't going to miss out on this one, especially since it's like a given victory with "air support".
I mean, this "cease fire" that's going on. Why is there no ceasfire? Because the West doesn't want it. It's already in motion. Whether it be jamming communications or "rebels staging attacks on themselves for show", it's clear that we've made the decision to go for blood...civilians or not in harms way...to put the regime WE want, into power. They aren't "peaceful"...they look just like those in that picture above in the truck. They struck a deal. Oil for help. And the Frence sadly are apparently in on it too.
skunk
Mar 27, 01:33 PM
Well some people think that's debatable ;).
It was a trap...:)
It was a trap...:)
petteri
Aug 17, 06:56 AM
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
That's exactly why they did it. The higher the "look angle" ,the fewer drop outs of the signal there are due to something (tall building) blocking the signal. It cut the cost of building repeaters in every nook and cranny of every urban area. Although now with the new portable unit they have been putting more of these up. An added benefit of the orbit is that those three people living in Northern Canada can get a signal!
I don't think Apple is concerned so much about not being able to sell a Sat ready iPod outside North America. It's more about how to integrate the Satellite service into a revenue stream for iTunes. If they can find a way to make cash with satellite radio, it will happen.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
That's exactly why they did it. The higher the "look angle" ,the fewer drop outs of the signal there are due to something (tall building) blocking the signal. It cut the cost of building repeaters in every nook and cranny of every urban area. Although now with the new portable unit they have been putting more of these up. An added benefit of the orbit is that those three people living in Northern Canada can get a signal!
I don't think Apple is concerned so much about not being able to sell a Sat ready iPod outside North America. It's more about how to integrate the Satellite service into a revenue stream for iTunes. If they can find a way to make cash with satellite radio, it will happen.
Kane08
Apr 2, 10:53 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Best post yet
Best post yet
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 01:42 PM
Meh, yes and no. For their integrated desktops (iMac)...pws and space are certainly an issue (especially since it doesn't have an accessibly PCI E slot for heavens sake. Now for MP's on the other hand...I dont think it would be an issue: accessible PCI E slots + ample chassis space + stock PWS capable of handling an HD 5870 or Crossfired 5770's. A 6970 shouldnt be a problem.
anyways(no snarkiness implied)...who said crossfire wasnt supported? The MacPro CAN be configured with 2x5770's.
There may be space in the Macbook Pros for a non-mobile video card, but the impact to battery life would be way beyond what I think Apple would tolerate.
anyways(no snarkiness implied)...who said crossfire wasnt supported? The MacPro CAN be configured with 2x5770's.
There may be space in the Macbook Pros for a non-mobile video card, but the impact to battery life would be way beyond what I think Apple would tolerate.
newagemac
May 3, 09:02 AM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Uh, this comment is entirely wrong. With iOS, you can download something and move to another app and it will continue downloading in the background. The multitasking APIs have all the obvious backgrounding tasks covered and will likely include more if needed. Basically the goal is to allow background tasks when needed and when not needed let the app suspend and release resources to the apps you actually need. This method in iOS has proven to work far better than traditional operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. That's why they are bringing it "Back to the Mac OS". The best parts of what they developed in iOS are being added in Lion.
I think most people's problem is that they mistakenly viewed iOS as inferior in every way to Mac OS X but in many ways it is cutting edge and far better than OS X and Windows have ever been. The way iOS multitasking works is the reason very powerful and memory hungry apps like iMove and GarageBand for iPad work so surprisingly well on such a limited memory device. The apps get to use a much larger percentage of the CPU, GPU, and RAM than they do on traditional OSes under normal usage where you have multiple apps open.
Right now I have a bunch of tabs open in Safari on my Mac and it's consuming a little over 1GB of RAM and lots of CPU. If I switch to Photoshop, Safari is still going to be using up all that RAM and CPU I really need for Photoshop when I don't plan on using Safari again until later today. And I don't want to shut it down because I have a bunch things in these tabs that I want to get back to later today including partially typed forum replies, halfway read articles, etc. On the iPad, Safari would suspend and release the RAM and CPU to my currently used RAM/CPU hungry app. That's what they need to bring to Lion.
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:46 PM
With HDMI, they'd have to be shooting higher than 480p. I'd say they'd go all out with 1080p, why not?
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
Chundles
Aug 7, 05:44 AM
Here we go again...
Timeline of my usual events for an Apple conference, all times are in AEST:
10pm: Some sort of massive leak comes out and we all post madly about it.
11pm: Someone figures out the leak must be fake and we all post madly about it.
12am: The hour of silence as all the Americans try to grab a few hours sleep.
1am: The east-coast of the US starts to wake up and post madly about the leak - the Europeans post endless "It's a fake, here's the link." posts, the Aussies who are awake begin to get incoherent in their posts (who me?).
2am: The forums are brought to a halt by an influx of newbies asking what the chinese writing on this picture of a "Video I-Pod" means.
3am: Kick-off, macrumourslive starts running their text updates, I fall asleep at least three times during the conference and wake up each time hoping I haven't missed anything cool.
4am: Conference is either still going or winding down, if it's still going, I fall asleep yet again, if it's winding down I get a tab going and reloading apple.com/au till all the information comes online.
5am: Conference is definitely over, forum may be flakey but online - hundreds are disappointed and vow to "wait for rev B" whilst hundreds more are refuting their claims of disappointment with long posts about money. I don't care because I'm asleep.
11am: Wha? Who? Where? Oh yeah? Time to get up. Pack up laptop and hop down to the net caf� to watch the Quicktime movies that have appeared on the Apple site at proper speed (not dial-up).
1pm: Lunch somewhere.
2pm: Net caf� again for uninterrupted stream of keynote.
3pm - 4pm: Reading forums for interesting tid-bits I'd missed, start thinking about a beer.
5pm: Pub, pretending not to be a Mac nerd who has just stayed up most the night looking at websites.
8pm: Home, dinner, hopefully not making the long distance call to Bourke on the porcelain telephone.
Thus endeth Apple Conference Day. For MWSF add 2 hours to the time.
Timeline of my usual events for an Apple conference, all times are in AEST:
10pm: Some sort of massive leak comes out and we all post madly about it.
11pm: Someone figures out the leak must be fake and we all post madly about it.
12am: The hour of silence as all the Americans try to grab a few hours sleep.
1am: The east-coast of the US starts to wake up and post madly about the leak - the Europeans post endless "It's a fake, here's the link." posts, the Aussies who are awake begin to get incoherent in their posts (who me?).
2am: The forums are brought to a halt by an influx of newbies asking what the chinese writing on this picture of a "Video I-Pod" means.
3am: Kick-off, macrumourslive starts running their text updates, I fall asleep at least three times during the conference and wake up each time hoping I haven't missed anything cool.
4am: Conference is either still going or winding down, if it's still going, I fall asleep yet again, if it's winding down I get a tab going and reloading apple.com/au till all the information comes online.
5am: Conference is definitely over, forum may be flakey but online - hundreds are disappointed and vow to "wait for rev B" whilst hundreds more are refuting their claims of disappointment with long posts about money. I don't care because I'm asleep.
11am: Wha? Who? Where? Oh yeah? Time to get up. Pack up laptop and hop down to the net caf� to watch the Quicktime movies that have appeared on the Apple site at proper speed (not dial-up).
1pm: Lunch somewhere.
2pm: Net caf� again for uninterrupted stream of keynote.
3pm - 4pm: Reading forums for interesting tid-bits I'd missed, start thinking about a beer.
5pm: Pub, pretending not to be a Mac nerd who has just stayed up most the night looking at websites.
8pm: Home, dinner, hopefully not making the long distance call to Bourke on the porcelain telephone.
Thus endeth Apple Conference Day. For MWSF add 2 hours to the time.
patseguin
Jun 23, 09:07 AM
Doesn't Snow Leopard already have multi touch capability built in?
lifeinhd
Feb 27, 09:43 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?
My parents would've shot me if I'd tried to drop that much $$$ on a computer when I was 14.
As it was, my dad was a little bothered I spent $1400 on a year-old MBP in 2008. But that was when the base MBP was $2k, so it was actually a really good deal :D
And then that Tuesday, the new models came out :p
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
My parents would've shot me if I'd tried to drop that much $$$ on a computer when I was 14.
As it was, my dad was a little bothered I spent $1400 on a year-old MBP in 2008. But that was when the base MBP was $2k, so it was actually a really good deal :D
And then that Tuesday, the new models came out :p
Zadillo
Aug 6, 09:24 PM
Longhorn is code name, The product name is Vista you will not see a third name for windows vista. Just like Windows XP I think was called Whistler (code name).
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
Porco
Apr 19, 04:55 PM
I've been putting a family member off buying an iMac for months in order to wait for the new ones, I hope the updates are very soon.
motulist
Aug 7, 03:29 AM
An image of the new iPhone just came out! I can't reveal the source I got it from, but you have to trust me, this is the real deal!
chairguru22
Jul 18, 11:20 AM
a movie will be 500MB at least and thats just iPod quality. Full-screen computer monitor quality thats watchable is at least 700MB that ive experienced.
people want to rent and watch movies on their tv so if there isnt a way to do this easily, even rentals will fail.
people want to rent and watch movies on their tv so if there isnt a way to do this easily, even rentals will fail.
skiltrip
Oct 2, 08:41 PM
I also bought mine from ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I ordered one of these from Ashopone last week (grey color). Does the gel case slide in and out of a pocket easily? The thing I hate about the silicone cases I have is that they are really sticking going in and out of pockets.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
I ordered one of these from Ashopone last week (grey color). Does the gel case slide in and out of a pocket easily? The thing I hate about the silicone cases I have is that they are really sticking going in and out of pockets.
alust2013
Apr 10, 05:40 PM
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
While this is true, stop and go traffic is rough on the left leg/knee. I drove through an hour's worth of a heavy traffic jam, and I would have been perfectly ok with using the brakes instead.
kjjnk
Apr 12, 08:29 PM
So far all of the negative criticism I've heard is from people who haven't seen it yet. Everyone else that's actually seen it says it will be great so I can't wait to see what Apple has up their sleeve.
HecubusPro
Sep 1, 01:48 PM
One more thing... they'll change the name from iMac to Mac, bringing a perfect symmetry to their product line-up:
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Mac
Mac Pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
No comments:
Post a Comment