bedifferent
May 3, 11:37 AM
I'm not so sure that is true. I was teaching an elderly person how to drag and drop a file into a folder and the whole drag and drop concept did not seem all that easy to her�.
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
I once had a client I set up a Windows box for years ago call me frantically in the middle of the night because she couldn't find the "any" key to continue...
dbhays
Aug 17, 01:44 AM
Apple says no
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/
xUKHCx
Jan 11, 04:55 PM
Leads nicely on from "There's Something in the Air" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=412600).
If you ask me it is not a very good name.
If you ask me it is not a very good name.
skunk
Mar 21, 02:10 PM
I suppose this begs the question 'How would you prefer they quantify the No Fly Zone?'Perhaps square miles would be a more useful measure. ;)
What country hasn't been used as "target practice"Gotta keep your eye in, I suppose...
What country hasn't been used as "target practice"Gotta keep your eye in, I suppose...
Irishman
Apr 20, 08:18 AM
A 6800m would be a downgrade. Keep in mind the current imac with the 5750 is actually a 5850m. 6850m is a downgrade from a 5850m, though only slightly. There are only two cards they could use that are upgrades over the current one and that's the 6950m and the 6970m.
I would also hope for the 3.4ghz i7-2600 sandy bridge processor.
Fixed!
I would also hope for the 3.4ghz i7-2600 sandy bridge processor.
Fixed!
jgould
Feb 23, 11:38 AM
iMark,
Nice and clean. I love simple setups.
Nice and clean. I love simple setups.
truz
Aug 6, 08:51 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.
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.
Heavy Fluid
Nov 25, 06:17 PM
Awesome, how much you pay for that?
$400. Needs new rear pads and the brakes to be bled. Everything else is great. Has X7/X9 front/rear.
$400. Needs new rear pads and the brakes to be bled. Everything else is great. Has X7/X9 front/rear.
Frisco
Sep 6, 09:41 PM
After following all this stuff today, I am really concerned about whateverthehell it is that will be announced next week. There seems to
be limited interest in movie downloads, when there are already good alternatives (netflix, the local video shop, etc.) There are definitely some
questions if that would/will even fly. I, for one, don't really care if I rent. I have a bunch of DVD movies, but rarely view them more than twice. So... even though an apple movie download service comes along, I really wonder how successful it will be. Which leads me to wonder... The Steve is not dumb. He is not going to order up a special meeting like this for something that may turn out to be nothing... Hell, it is apparently viewed by apple as much more important than the introduction of the 24" iMac, which is a heck of an interesting gadget. Do you think that there may be some REALLY BIG new technological/hardware gizmo being intro'd? Something that makes the movie store just a minor part of a larger picture. I keep thinking, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. SHOW ME THE HARDWARE!
Agreed! On-Demand is the future for movies. It just needs more of a selection then it's perfect.
Downloading movies is of limited interest to most people. Just give up the Mac Media Center (iHome) and we'll all be happy campers come Tuesday!
be limited interest in movie downloads, when there are already good alternatives (netflix, the local video shop, etc.) There are definitely some
questions if that would/will even fly. I, for one, don't really care if I rent. I have a bunch of DVD movies, but rarely view them more than twice. So... even though an apple movie download service comes along, I really wonder how successful it will be. Which leads me to wonder... The Steve is not dumb. He is not going to order up a special meeting like this for something that may turn out to be nothing... Hell, it is apparently viewed by apple as much more important than the introduction of the 24" iMac, which is a heck of an interesting gadget. Do you think that there may be some REALLY BIG new technological/hardware gizmo being intro'd? Something that makes the movie store just a minor part of a larger picture. I keep thinking, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. SHOW ME THE HARDWARE!
Agreed! On-Demand is the future for movies. It just needs more of a selection then it's perfect.
Downloading movies is of limited interest to most people. Just give up the Mac Media Center (iHome) and we'll all be happy campers come Tuesday!
supercooled
Feb 21, 06:14 PM
It's finally all finished. Put the Craftsman tool chest in this weekend. It mostly hold cable and repair tools for guitars.
The white box on the front right leg of the desk is actually a Belkin remote. I've wired the desk so that when I hit that switch the 3 displays, audio monitors and all USB controllers will turn on.
I hate wires showing so I went to great lengths to hide them.
Very nice.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
The white box on the front right leg of the desk is actually a Belkin remote. I've wired the desk so that when I hit that switch the 3 displays, audio monitors and all USB controllers will turn on.
I hate wires showing so I went to great lengths to hide them.
Very nice.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
Piggie
Mar 25, 11:19 AM
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
Well, to be fair, I was never expecting a PCI version of such a card to be fitted into an iMac.
Given Apple's money, I thought they would have gone to ATI, Worked with them, and allocated a space inside the frame of a high end iMac, with the aluminium to act as a cooling area, and ATI could have designed a custom layout for this area using the same GPU's as are in the PCI card version.
Well, to be fair, I was never expecting a PCI version of such a card to be fitted into an iMac.
Given Apple's money, I thought they would have gone to ATI, Worked with them, and allocated a space inside the frame of a high end iMac, with the aluminium to act as a cooling area, and ATI could have designed a custom layout for this area using the same GPU's as are in the PCI card version.
ftaok
Mar 25, 05:12 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv. the only games that would work for this are racing games, where you just tilt the ipad.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
what a world of difference some buttons would make <sigh>
Well, couldn't someone make a BT D-pad controller and develop dual screen games for the iPad2?
Other games that could work with this set-up are RPGs and strategy games where a second screen comes in handy.
cgc
Mar 24, 02:38 PM
I;m going to go out on a limb and preemptively complain my MacPro 1.1 isn't supported :( and is only as configurable as an iMac...the irony...
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 05:34 PM
That's because in the US most of us drive on two types of roads, crowded ones and dead straight ones. Automatics are superior on crowded ones and it doesn't matter on straight ones.
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.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
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.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
paeza
Oct 24, 12:35 AM
Could anyone tell me what is "Santa Rosa " ?
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
macfan881
Jul 18, 03:37 PM
there r plenty movies i watch more than once i would rather buy a movie though from itunes rather than rent as i have netflix already and it would be a better fit i think steve went to rental if its true cause of the price diffrence he wants 9.99 for a movie the studios want atleast 19.99 so thats why i think this would be true even if they both comprimise and be 12-14 and maybe through some exclusive content bonus featurs i would still buy movies for itunes espiecaily once i get my ipod video
ajkrause
Sep 1, 01:41 PM
Weel you could have returned it for a 10% restocking fee up to 10 days after purchase and bought the 17" then. Did you not know that? :confused:
I did. Unfortunately, I was on vacation in Cuba at the time. I came to find out about the upgrade almost 3 weeks later when I got back and by then it was too late. By the way, in the store they told me the restocking fee was 15%.
I did. Unfortunately, I was on vacation in Cuba at the time. I came to find out about the upgrade almost 3 weeks later when I got back and by then it was too late. By the way, in the store they told me the restocking fee was 15%.
dukishdary
Jan 11, 05:15 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...
HahaHaha321
Apr 2, 07:32 PM
Did this ad make anyone else misty-eyed, or is it just me? Anyone? /s:
I hope you're kidding. :p
I hope you're kidding. :p
guez
Sep 7, 03:37 PM
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
This raises an interesting question. I'm not so much interested in depreciation as obsolescence. My experience has been that if you buy the right Mac (this is key), it can last 4 years, or more, and system updates/upgrades will not seriously degrade performance (sometimes there can even be an improvement, as with Panther). This is NOT my experience with Wintel. Is this going to change with Intel? Perhaps the readership of this blog does not fall in this category, but Macs have historically appealed to those who want to spend a little more money for more value (including a longer useful life)-the same people who drive a Honda Civic into the ground rather than buying a Chevy Malibu every three years (sorry, I couldn't think of another example).
Are we entering the age of the Walmart-ifation of Macs: less value, but cheaper?
Porchland
Jul 19, 08:54 AM
I've watched every movie I own at least 15x, and most of them many more than that. I for one won't rent from itunes, I'd rather not is all. If they make money off of it, more power to them
I think rental is probably a bigger market, but there are plenty of people like you that want to keep the movie forever. I would like to see Apple come up with a dual model that allows you to rent a movie for 48 hours that will play on all platforms or buy the movie outright.
The PPV model for $4 a pop seems to make more sense for iTunes than the Netflix model of so many movies at a time.
I think rental is probably a bigger market, but there are plenty of people like you that want to keep the movie forever. I would like to see Apple come up with a dual model that allows you to rent a movie for 48 hours that will play on all platforms or buy the movie outright.
The PPV model for $4 a pop seems to make more sense for iTunes than the Netflix model of so many movies at a time.
Macula
Jan 11, 10:28 PM
In colloquial modern Greek, "air" is metaphorically a price premium one pays for hype.
Sinister.
Sinister.
yac_moda
Jul 19, 07:38 PM
Ah, those were the days.
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
NOT NEAR AS BAD AS THE ROARING 20s when many IPOs were openly pyramid schemes -- pyramid scheme TODAYS HOUSING MARKET :eek: :mad:
Have you ever noticed that old timers LIKE pyramid schema !!!
I guess that is why DELL was once sooo popular :rolleyes:
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
NOT NEAR AS BAD AS THE ROARING 20s when many IPOs were openly pyramid schemes -- pyramid scheme TODAYS HOUSING MARKET :eek: :mad:
Have you ever noticed that old timers LIKE pyramid schema !!!
I guess that is why DELL was once sooo popular :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment