gnomeisland
Apr 20, 02:28 PM
2. HDMI out
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:14 PM
Ok, so the text update says the screenshot is 'sexy.'
Well, I'm sold!
Well, I'm sold!
Frosticus
Apr 21, 05:20 AM
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Agreed, the "Pro" bit is referring to it's spec relative to the standard MacBook.. not to the users.. :rolleyes:
BTW - has anyone else noticed the shipping times for the Mac Pros? 12-core and server are now 3-5 days in UK and US stores. Is this a slip also ahead of potential refresh? /optimism
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Agreed, the "Pro" bit is referring to it's spec relative to the standard MacBook.. not to the users.. :rolleyes:
BTW - has anyone else noticed the shipping times for the Mac Pros? 12-core and server are now 3-5 days in UK and US stores. Is this a slip also ahead of potential refresh? /optimism
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 09:42 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
It is very obvious when someone has no idea what they are talking about, and just making up false information.
BenRoethig
Nov 28, 07:59 AM
Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?
Might have something to do with the fact that it matches the computer. However, the vast majority of Apple vs Dell display battles, even in the Mac community go to Dell. By the way, of the 23" displays tested last year, the one recommended by Macworld wasn't the Cinema Display, it only got 3.5 mice. The winner was actually an HP, which also by the way, was roughly the same price as the ACD at the time. It's 24" successor is about the same price as the dell. Same of their 20" Give all the "professional quality" justifications you want, the price of the components went down. Apple's making a ton off of giant margins because they know there are some who want that Apple logo so badly they'll pay twice as much to get it.
Might have something to do with the fact that it matches the computer. However, the vast majority of Apple vs Dell display battles, even in the Mac community go to Dell. By the way, of the 23" displays tested last year, the one recommended by Macworld wasn't the Cinema Display, it only got 3.5 mice. The winner was actually an HP, which also by the way, was roughly the same price as the ACD at the time. It's 24" successor is about the same price as the dell. Same of their 20" Give all the "professional quality" justifications you want, the price of the components went down. Apple's making a ton off of giant margins because they know there are some who want that Apple logo so badly they'll pay twice as much to get it.
Cowinacape
Aug 7, 03:51 AM
Just wanted to say thanks to MR for setting up a convenient keynote feed for us! Thanks!:cool:
.jpg "Vybz Kartel at his #39;Pretty")
kalisphoenix
Jan 1, 09:14 PM
Looks to me like another post by Fake Steve
(http://www.fakesteve.blogspot.com)
Heh... kinda lacks the Zen aura, though. Not that Steve's very Zen.
I had a similar thing back in my misspent youth, 4-5 years ago. A fake George Bush on Livejournal. I got bored though and quit because all the girls who friended me and wanted to have my baby were really tubby.
(http://www.fakesteve.blogspot.com)
Heh... kinda lacks the Zen aura, though. Not that Steve's very Zen.
I had a similar thing back in my misspent youth, 4-5 years ago. A fake George Bush on Livejournal. I got bored though and quit because all the girls who friended me and wanted to have my baby were really tubby.
ciTiger
Apr 21, 12:21 PM
Apple has to get used to these kind of things now that it is growing more and more...
Gregg2
Apr 11, 07:57 PM
A CVT is simply a transmission with no fixed gear ratios. It can have any gear ratio between a set minimum and maximum, it has no "steps" like "1st gear, 2nd gear". In other words, it's a transmission type where you could theoretically have the engine spin where it produces the most power (let's say at 5000 rpm) all the time while accelerating. In reality, car CVTs do still have gears, like the Honda Fit which is a 7 gear automatic CVT transmission.
CVT, DSG or the traditional fluid type are all automatics. They just differ in their inner workings. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the inner-working, the paddle like shifters or + - gates on the shifter is simply an interface that lets you override any of the automatic transmissions and select your own gear.
A distinction to make. You could technically have a CVT transmission that you put in "drive" and drive off and you could have a traditional automatic with paddle shifters. Both are unrelated in their function.
Interesting, even for someone not real mechanically inclined, such as myself. And yes, the CVT on my soon to be new vehicle can be placed in "regular" drive and it behaves as a normal automatic. You can also use the CVT without the paddles, using the shift lever instead. In fact, you can get one that doesn't even have paddles. The ones that do also allow you to use the shift lever to "change gears".
CVT, DSG or the traditional fluid type are all automatics. They just differ in their inner workings. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the inner-working, the paddle like shifters or + - gates on the shifter is simply an interface that lets you override any of the automatic transmissions and select your own gear.
A distinction to make. You could technically have a CVT transmission that you put in "drive" and drive off and you could have a traditional automatic with paddle shifters. Both are unrelated in their function.
Interesting, even for someone not real mechanically inclined, such as myself. And yes, the CVT on my soon to be new vehicle can be placed in "regular" drive and it behaves as a normal automatic. You can also use the CVT without the paddles, using the shift lever instead. In fact, you can get one that doesn't even have paddles. The ones that do also allow you to use the shift lever to "change gears".
Tonsko
Jan 7, 05:13 AM
Not too bad, if it's a modern one. Depends if he rags it all the time, but you'll get 35+ out of it I imagine.
milo
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
benjs
Mar 23, 10:34 AM
This is a long-shot, but my dream feature for the iPod classic is the ability for bi-directional communication between that and my iPhone. What do I mean? Essentially, tethering the iPod classic to the iPhone so it acts as an extended hard drive for music and videos. This way, in my car, I could utilize Voice Control or the iPod app on the iPhone to select a song from my full library on my iPod classic, and have it stream that music to my iPhone, so that I could still have the phone feature or GPS instructions outputting audio to my car. Bi-directional communication comes into play when, once I've selected my album, or told it to shuffle, I could click the physical "Next" button on my iPod classic. Again.. very niche, but a dream feature for me!
arkitect
Mar 22, 12:47 PM
We do work to make things better in the US that's why everyone always wants to come to America.
Nope. Not everyone. I am quite happy where I am… thanks.
Quite frankly after a few visits I am happy never to return to the Land of the super-sized, home of the intolerant.
Nope. Not everyone. I am quite happy where I am… thanks.
Quite frankly after a few visits I am happy never to return to the Land of the super-sized, home of the intolerant.
(marc)
Mar 19, 05:12 PM
Historical observation: The Iraqi people never asked for US help, but there we were.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
[...]
That's why the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
I don't think so. Gaddafi willingly traded Libya's oil, currently no oil at all is traded, and I don't think the rebels (unorganized as they are) will do a good job at it anytime soon. The nations now supporting the air strikes against Gaddafi would have been better off quietly sending him weapons to mute the rebels if they wanted oil.
Changen
Feb 23, 03:17 PM
nothing special but heres my setups bedroom and office
whooleytoo
Jul 18, 05:58 AM
I don't think the time is right for online digital movie rentals. Even with a relatively fast broadband service, it still is going to take a fair amount of time to download the file. If the file only plays once, or just for a day, or a few days it's just not worth the effort, IMO.
On the other hand, if it were a subscription service, or a download & keep it would be. Perhaps, in the not too distant future when we all have much faster connections, the download rental market might make more sense.
Surely the TV Shows issue is because the US shows are sold on to European TV Stations, usually after the show has aired in the states. These TV Stations aren't going to be too pleased if they've shelled out a bucketload of money for the UK premier of 24 for example, only to have it show up on iTunes before they've even aired it.
So <the inevitable reply> why don't the air the shows on the same day in every country? In the TV age, it wouldn't make sense. In the digital age, it's the only way that makes any sense.
On the other hand, if it were a subscription service, or a download & keep it would be. Perhaps, in the not too distant future when we all have much faster connections, the download rental market might make more sense.
Surely the TV Shows issue is because the US shows are sold on to European TV Stations, usually after the show has aired in the states. These TV Stations aren't going to be too pleased if they've shelled out a bucketload of money for the UK premier of 24 for example, only to have it show up on iTunes before they've even aired it.
So <the inevitable reply> why don't the air the shows on the same day in every country? In the TV age, it wouldn't make sense. In the digital age, it's the only way that makes any sense.
iPhone1
Feb 8, 10:58 AM
Wave hi to me as I pass you on the freeway :)
neko girl
Mar 20, 11:38 AM
Several court rulings have placed the rights of Gay people above the rights of people holding religious beliefs.
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
I'm all for the distribution of the app on grounds of free speech (which may or may not apply to a curated app store like Apple's). However, I do like the ignorant statement you just made here, that I've quoted.
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:04 AM
I'm 32, still love driving
Very humorous. :)
Very humorous. :)
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 09:56 AM
Subtract keyboard. Add multi-touch and WiMax. Thin as an iPhone.
Nope, more powerfull with real OS X.
Nope, more powerfull with real OS X.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:51 PM
Trademark status of "app store"
The government's site on trademarks lists the status as:
"Current Status: An opposition after publication is pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page. "
It was approved for use by apple:
"2010-07-07 - Opposition instituted for Proceeding
2010-02-04 - Extension Of Time To Oppose Received
2010-01-05 - Notice Of Publication E-Mailed
2010-01-05 - Published for opposition
2009-12-02 - Law Office Publication Review Completed
2009-12-01 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
2009-12-01 - Amendment to Use approved
2009-11-21 - Amendment To Use Processing Complete"
I believe Apple's ability to sue is based on the approval to use the TM even though the final trademark has not been fully granted.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77%2F525433&action=Request+Status
I remember stories claiming "tentative approval" of the app store back in early 2011. But the application history (some of which I posted above) does not have any items in 2011. Perhaps our legal experts can explain the source of these stories claiming "tentative approval early this year". Is that just a delay between legal filings and public announcements?
The government's site on trademarks lists the status as:
"Current Status: An opposition after publication is pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further information, see TTABVUE on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page. "
It was approved for use by apple:
"2010-07-07 - Opposition instituted for Proceeding
2010-02-04 - Extension Of Time To Oppose Received
2010-01-05 - Notice Of Publication E-Mailed
2010-01-05 - Published for opposition
2009-12-02 - Law Office Publication Review Completed
2009-12-01 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
2009-12-01 - Amendment to Use approved
2009-11-21 - Amendment To Use Processing Complete"
I believe Apple's ability to sue is based on the approval to use the TM even though the final trademark has not been fully granted.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77%2F525433&action=Request+Status
I remember stories claiming "tentative approval" of the app store back in early 2011. But the application history (some of which I posted above) does not have any items in 2011. Perhaps our legal experts can explain the source of these stories claiming "tentative approval early this year". Is that just a delay between legal filings and public announcements?
bedifferent
Apr 2, 09:48 PM
I noticed that I had around 15.6gb on my 25gb partition just before installing the update. Afterward I have 17.32. It could be that some settings or cache or whatever in some places have been reset. I know that my Launchpad needs to have apps placed back into it, but that couldn't take up that much space(?). Could be something else I haven't seen yet.
All that I have on the Lion partition is the OS install. Even my Home directory is pointed to that on my Snow Leopard partition.
Do you have "local snapshots" on in "Time Machine"? If so, it creates a hidden folder of saved data, snapshots, and it fills up quickly. You can uncheck it, then delete the hidden folder (I think it was in my Home folder). Local snapshots is still a rough beta, they're fleshing it out still.
All that I have on the Lion partition is the OS install. Even my Home directory is pointed to that on my Snow Leopard partition.
Do you have "local snapshots" on in "Time Machine"? If so, it creates a hidden folder of saved data, snapshots, and it fills up quickly. You can uncheck it, then delete the hidden folder (I think it was in my Home folder). Local snapshots is still a rough beta, they're fleshing it out still.
Tomorrow
Apr 20, 03:46 PM
Were your other cars manual? The Camaro isn't helping your argument any more than the Lotus is helping mine.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
;)
What argument? My main point is that I hate driving, and a manual transmission doesn't help me enjoy it any more than an automatic.
Evangelion
Aug 31, 07:19 AM
Grah. I hope this rumour proves incorrect. A processor that can't do x86-64 is planned obsolescence. I don't want to buy a computer that will be unable to run software in a few years!
What makes you think that it "can't run software"? Current 32bit CPU's will be usable for years to come.
What makes you think that it "can't run software"? Current 32bit CPU's will be usable for years to come.
0 comments:
Post a Comment