SwiftLives
Jun 22, 12:33 PM
Just from a pragmatic standpoint...
Fingerprints on the screen would be difficult to get around - even with Apple's "oleophobicc" display. Fingerprints still show.
Secondly - why? Is taking your hand off of a mouse to touch the safari icon on the screen somehow easier than just clicking on it with the cursor? Is there some advantage to typing by touching the screen rather than a keyboard?
Personally, I don't see much advantage to having a touch interface on any device that isn't portable.
Fingerprints on the screen would be difficult to get around - even with Apple's "oleophobicc" display. Fingerprints still show.
Secondly - why? Is taking your hand off of a mouse to touch the safari icon on the screen somehow easier than just clicking on it with the cursor? Is there some advantage to typing by touching the screen rather than a keyboard?
Personally, I don't see much advantage to having a touch interface on any device that isn't portable.
fun173
Jan 2, 07:40 PM
I need to get the 07 STI rims mounted once the winter season is over.
'97 Subaru svx lsi
'97 Subaru svx lsi
mkrishnan
Jan 1, 06:01 PM
not only that, but none of the rumors really pointed to MWSF for a compact Macbook.
Agreed... I lust after it, but I have very low expectation of seeing it in January....
Nice work with the summary, Arn! :D
One other thing I think are interesting... We widely expect an iLife 07, but there have been basically no rumors related to how it will differ from iLife 06. I mean there're lots of obvious speculations, but....
Agreed... I lust after it, but I have very low expectation of seeing it in January....
Nice work with the summary, Arn! :D
One other thing I think are interesting... We widely expect an iLife 07, but there have been basically no rumors related to how it will differ from iLife 06. I mean there're lots of obvious speculations, but....
baryon
Apr 10, 03:42 AM
I don't understand why everyone seems to dislike the "new" iCal so much. Clearly, it was adopted by iPad iOS at first and now by Mac OS X Lion. Nothing new here. Nothing unexpected.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:
Are you sure the iPad iCal looks the same as the Lion iCal? I'm pretty sure the iPad version is much less orange! I think that just by changing the color of the Lion version to something less fluorescent, it would be fine.
I don't remember people disliking/complaining about the iCal look on iPad at all. I tell ya, people complain just for the sake of complaining. What a crowd. :rolleyes:
Are you sure the iPad iCal looks the same as the Lion iCal? I'm pretty sure the iPad version is much less orange! I think that just by changing the color of the Lion version to something less fluorescent, it would be fine.
apb3
Aug 19, 10:38 AM
If Apple do that then iPod sales will die whenever their competitors are offer all the other services along with an MP3 player. Apple isn't about conservatisim and playing it safe, the reason the iPod was a success was precisely the opposite: innovation.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
"Pure" machines are a dying breed, there are very few around these days. Consoles, computers and mobile phones have all shown that the more you offer the better you sell and that "pure" machines are soon to be extinct.
And apb3, what you're describing in the chocolate and PSP is NOT a QWERTY keyboard. Look at the youtube video of the MYLO.
Never actually held the chocolate, just saw the TV ad. But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you? But, in any case, thanks for putting me straight on that.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining, mostly useless "feature(s)" to the best selling media device in the world. No one is going to jump ship because they can't control their dishwasher from their iPod interface. If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
ZipZap
May 3, 04:40 AM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
mingspace
Oct 23, 09:10 PM
yes on the 31 we shall have a trick and a treat... ...MACBOO
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
Anyone have a hunch on the price the new macbooks and MBPs?
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
Anyone have a hunch on the price the new macbooks and MBPs?
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:58 PM
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:09 PM
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
I think EVERYONE's suggested prices are way too high, even for a chip upgrade. They'll want to do a cost comparison for these new machines the same way they did the Mac Pro. iMacs are still quite overpriced compared to similar desktops from other companies, even with monitors. Bring those prices down Apple, and you'll have a TON of "switchers" with these machines.
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
I think EVERYONE's suggested prices are way too high, even for a chip upgrade. They'll want to do a cost comparison for these new machines the same way they did the Mac Pro. iMacs are still quite overpriced compared to similar desktops from other companies, even with monitors. Bring those prices down Apple, and you'll have a TON of "switchers" with these machines.
Evangelion
Jul 14, 05:34 AM
This is all Sony's fault.:mad: If they learned anything from the Betamax, they should know that when ever they try to standardize a technology, they fail.
You mean like when they standardised on CD's?
You mean like when they standardised on CD's?
bobsentell
May 2, 04:46 PM
I wonder if it is time to drop the "Mac" from MacOS.....
iJohnHenry
Mar 31, 05:41 PM
Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the Germans?
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
As did the supply ships making their way to Murmansk. Many merchant marines lost their lives on that run.
~Shard~
Nov 15, 08:51 AM
This is very cool, however I think the article says it all:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
iMikeT
Aug 24, 10:08 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.
April Dancer
Aug 17, 04:29 AM
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.
Because they introduced video playback capability, that's why. I travel and this iPod has meant that I don't have to drag around countless dvds to while away hotel room evenings. I love it, but ultimately, the screen is ever so slightly too small (not by much, I'm not asking plasma screen here!) and I need more storage. I know I could go and buy an Archos or some such other brand but I really don't want to do that, and I'm very sure that Apple don't want me to either.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
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.
Because they introduced video playback capability, that's why. I travel and this iPod has meant that I don't have to drag around countless dvds to while away hotel room evenings. I love it, but ultimately, the screen is ever so slightly too small (not by much, I'm not asking plasma screen here!) and I need more storage. I know I could go and buy an Archos or some such other brand but I really don't want to do that, and I'm very sure that Apple don't want me to either.
If it was still purely an mp3 player I would totally agree with you. Besides, 10 months+ with no update is a long time in the life cycle of an iPod. Only going by previous form. :)
islanders
Dec 27, 11:35 PM
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
dagamer34
Mar 24, 01:06 PM
Would definitely be great if they would just support off-the-shelf graphics cards. I'd be a little surprised, but I've given up saying that Apple will or won't do something just because of their prior decisions.
jW
Apple writes all the drivers for the cards. It supports, so that will probably never happen.
jW
Apple writes all the drivers for the cards. It supports, so that will probably never happen.
rdowns
Mar 19, 04:50 PM
mispost...ignore.
As if we need to be told that.
As if we need to be told that.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 12, 09:29 PM
I hope this means we will eventually see a 64bit version of iMovie ;)
quadgirl
Sep 1, 01:19 PM
A 23" Merom iMac. Really nice! But I was hoping for Conroe to power the next iMac series. A bit underwhelming. Isn't the Conroe supposed to have a solid performance edge over the Merom? A faster FSB and higher clockspeeds?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
The Merom isn't showing MASSIVE speed improvements over Yonah, but it is impressive. Impressive that is for a laptop processor. But the Conroe has(being a desktop chip) a HUGE performace gain over Merom. Check the stats and you'll see that gap between laptop and desktop speeds has widened considerably.
On the subject of Graphics, maybe Apple may move to Nvidia as Ati have been bought out by AMD.
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
The Merom isn't showing MASSIVE speed improvements over Yonah, but it is impressive. Impressive that is for a laptop processor. But the Conroe has(being a desktop chip) a HUGE performace gain over Merom. Check the stats and you'll see that gap between laptop and desktop speeds has widened considerably.
On the subject of Graphics, maybe Apple may move to Nvidia as Ati have been bought out by AMD.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:04 PM
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
Uh ? You say the crashing is somehow related to pre-emptive multi-tasking and yet you talk about Windows 3.0 and 3.1 which had... cooperative multi-tasking ? :confused:
I was talking about Unix systems on 386s (think BSD, think SCO UnixWare, think early Linux). Those had true pre-emptive multi-tasking and they didn't "crash faster than you click your mouse". (heck, my first DOS computer had no mouse and I don't think it ever crashed).
Crashing has nothing to do with the type of multi-tasking.
I think what he is saying is that programs that are actually doing work in the background can continue running, while those that aren't can suspend iOS style. That is how Lion works. It brings the benefits of both iOS & Mac OS.
What's working ? Is a program that's sitting in its idle loop waiting on a listen() operation not working ? Is a program that's firing a heartbeat every X seconds not working ?
Are we that ressource limited that we need to suspend these programs and have system level services to do these tasks, which the programs will register with on launch ? What's the benefit of a system level service vs the program doing it itself ?
Let's face it, it's not like a program sitting in the background is digging into the CPU much with a idle loop...
John Jacob
Jul 21, 08:00 AM
Here are historical Mac sales by quarter.
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
So we are still not back upto Q1 2000 numbers? :eek:
1Q2000 - 1,377,000
3Q2006- 1,327,000
So we are still not back upto Q1 2000 numbers? :eek:
islanders
Dec 29, 08:04 PM
I entirely DISagree :)
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
jonharris200
Sep 1, 04:00 PM
"Thin is in". I like that slogan.
No comments:
Post a Comment