diogowerner
Aug 7, 05:29 AM
Mac OS X Leopard for Mac+PC :eek:
While MS is thinking about an "iPod killer", Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
While MS is thinking about an "iPod killer", Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
Deechh
Nov 26, 04:57 PM
nvm
codymac
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
Kinda. They are manual gear boxes with no clutch pedal. Shifting is either automatic or manual.
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
Technically, it's a manual gearbox... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox)
If this sounds strange, I had an old Beetle with a stick shift automatic.
Dale
I mean their manuals.
(Not the VW Autostick or any of their other manumatic stuff.)
Chris Bangle
Aug 25, 06:54 AM
Why does intel have to be soooo confusing, A year ago you could either have a G4 or a G5, Nowadays dyo want core solo, core duo, merom, the other one, or that other one, or the other one.( I can ony remeber conroe and merom)... Ok there more powerful but there are too many to decide from.
kalun
Oct 23, 11:00 PM
Meanwhile, product checks (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2163) indicate that several European hardware distributers "ran dry" of MacBook and MacBook Pro inventory several weeks ago.
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
paddy
Aug 24, 07:07 PM
Obviously???
the Mac Pro is one thing, but you wont see dual optical drives in an iMac much less a Mini, there's no point 4 the standard consumer market.
I gather that he was joking because of that smiley at the end of the post.
the Mac Pro is one thing, but you wont see dual optical drives in an iMac much less a Mini, there's no point 4 the standard consumer market.
I gather that he was joking because of that smiley at the end of the post.
Built
Apr 3, 05:53 AM
The only thing worse than trolls in threads like this are posters (like yourself) who suffer from Yogi Bear Syndrome.
To say that "virtually every" iPad 2 has a backlight problem simply makes you look like an idiot. There's no way you can know this, and basing your assumption on the number of posts in a forum - be it Apple's or someone else's - just make you look foolish, especially considering most forums are populated by just a few people. The reality is that 99% of iPad 2 users probably don't even know that there is an iPad forum on the internet!
Case in point: count the number of times YOU'VE posted your BS here, and the 9 or 10 people who bothered to answer you. That's already taken up more than 4 pages by itself. Case rested. :rolleyes:
...So what does it say about YOU that you feel the NEED to respond. You sound like another one who needs to get out more.
To say that "virtually every" iPad 2 has a backlight problem simply makes you look like an idiot. There's no way you can know this, and basing your assumption on the number of posts in a forum - be it Apple's or someone else's - just make you look foolish, especially considering most forums are populated by just a few people. The reality is that 99% of iPad 2 users probably don't even know that there is an iPad forum on the internet!
Case in point: count the number of times YOU'VE posted your BS here, and the 9 or 10 people who bothered to answer you. That's already taken up more than 4 pages by itself. Case rested. :rolleyes:
...So what does it say about YOU that you feel the NEED to respond. You sound like another one who needs to get out more.
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:18 PM
as the other guys have said, in the UK automatics are pretty rare. i think we all know one friend or so who has an Auto only license, everyone else just gets a normal license.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
When is the last time you were in an automatic and what year/make/model was the car?
Automatics these days are generally a LOT better than they used to be. This is coming from someone who really loves driving a stick on country roads and likes the control you get from one.
I'm starting to think most stick drivers are blind to how much automatics have changed.
if you are the sort of person who enjoys driving to any degree then a manual gearbox is much better. autos are just so boring, they never kick down when you need it or bizarrely hold on to a gear for much longer than you were expecting. im sure there are some good autos out there but they will always be more inefficient than a manual.
When is the last time you were in an automatic and what year/make/model was the car?
Automatics these days are generally a LOT better than they used to be. This is coming from someone who really loves driving a stick on country roads and likes the control you get from one.
I'm starting to think most stick drivers are blind to how much automatics have changed.
cube
Mar 24, 02:10 PM
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
iMark
Feb 24, 02:33 AM
Thanks, the speakers are Eclipse td307paii
http://www.eclipse-td.net
http://www.eclipse-td.net
rezenclowd3
Jan 9, 08:50 PM
It was/ is very clean and well cared for. Right now its a 5ft paint job, which is all orig :o I have all 22 years of records which is damn nice. How much did I pay? I'd rather not say, but as a reference, I think one looking for such a clean car in good mechanical condition pay $4-5k for a car with no mods. Blue book for these cars with the mileage they typically have is $2k. I completely overpaid for a stock car, however I wanted a clean/ mechanically excellent car that's ready for competition, so I was willing to pay quite a premium to find EXACTLY what I was looking for.
After owning this for a week and 1 day, I want to now purchase a 325i convertible. I missed a few steals last month :( However all would probably have needed just $3-4k in work to make it another DD.
BTW when quoting, at the max only include 1 pic. It's a pita to scroll through the same pics 2x. Thanks for the compliment though.
After owning this for a week and 1 day, I want to now purchase a 325i convertible. I missed a few steals last month :( However all would probably have needed just $3-4k in work to make it another DD.
BTW when quoting, at the max only include 1 pic. It's a pita to scroll through the same pics 2x. Thanks for the compliment though.
Deechh
Nov 26, 04:57 PM
nvm
Lepton
Jul 18, 04:52 PM
Apple wants to sell movies for $9.99, the studios say no, because they are greedy. Let's rent them for (I'll guess) $1.99 per view! Or (I'll guess) unlimited movies for $19.99 per month! That way, we get big bucks!
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
Foolish foolish, foolish. The movies will have DRM on them. The DRM will be cracked, because ALL DRMs are cracked. So the studios end up with, instead of $10, a measly $2, because people will rent them for one view, crack the DRM, and now own the movie permanently.
The viewer gets the movie permanently anyway, instead of getting $10, they get $2 because they are greedy, and dumb.
Or worse, a use pays $20 for a month, downloads every ding dang movie in the store, and gets them all. Even worse, the cracked movies will be put all over the Net by frustrated viewers.
Let Apple do it RIGHT! People will pay $10, get the movie and be legal and nice, happy viewers don't crack DRM, don't put cracked films all over the Net, and the studios make out big. Just like with music. But nooooo, greed loses every time.
By the way I predict movies will be 16:10 (sic) widescreen and not HD, stream in like Front Row trailers, streamable in iTunes AND in Front Row, the streams will be downloadable as you watch so they will be loadable and viewable on current and new widescreen video iPods, and will be compressed to about 1GB/100 minutes.
generik
Jul 19, 05:24 PM
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
Made possible by paying 10c for each Mac constructed with a high quality and proficient workforce.
Made possible by paying 10c for each Mac constructed with a high quality and proficient workforce.
infernohellion
Apr 3, 09:18 AM
The size decrease makes sense right?
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
Leopard was large because it was built to be run on PPC as well (universal binary)
Snow Leopard was much smaller because it's Intel only
and now further refinement plus 64-bit only stuff (right?)
aswitcher
Jan 11, 11:30 PM
Agreed. It's not just a bad name; it's a sin!
How about MacBook Zephyr
MacBook Breeze
MacBook Frizbee
How about MacBook Zephyr
MacBook Breeze
MacBook Frizbee
crazycat
Sep 1, 03:51 PM
Well if its true all i can say is to late, why could'nt they have brought it out when the intel iMacs came out :(
nagromme
Sep 1, 12:22 PM
Getting rid of the chin would require an external power supply like the ACDs unless you want a power supply sized blank space on the screen :p
Not to mention, lots of displays (not even computers!) have had a big space below the screen. But I guess because they put VISIBLE speaker grilles and cluttery lines down there, it's OK :)
Not to mention, lots of displays (not even computers!) have had a big space below the screen. But I guess because they put VISIBLE speaker grilles and cluttery lines down there, it's OK :)
E.Lizardo
Mar 25, 07:48 PM
Good luck performing multi-touch and gestures with buttons and joysticks. :rolleyes:
Good luck watching two screens at the same time.
Good luck watching two screens at the same time.
roland.g
Sep 1, 12:56 PM
I was going to do a Mac Mini with a Ministack. I didn't like the idea of the iMac because of the integrated aspect. I already have a 19" display and would upgrade to a 23" ACD when iSight gets added. However my two hangups on the Mini were the 5400 RPM drive and integrated GPU - I want to use it for a lot of iMovie and eventually Final Cut Express. The 23" comes out and I am all over that. So, please please please make it in reduced chin aluminum. Sexy sells.
ohaithar
Nov 27, 12:48 AM
This poster
http://images5.cpcache.com/product/71837185v4_350x350_Front.jpg
http://images5.cpcache.com/product/71837185v4_350x350_Front.jpg
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. ;)
Musubi
Feb 27, 03:20 PM
The sucky part about the 22" LCD was that it had a really high defect rate.
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh!
Yeesh... don't remind me. The inverter board in mine started doing the blink on blink off starting around late 2003. It was really intermittent at first and happened maybe once a month. Then in the thing really went crazy and was off more than it was on. Back then, the company that sold parts rarely had the board for the 22" model (the inverter board went bad in my 17" Studio Display in 2003 and they had tons of those in stock) and I really needed a monitor so I just ended up buying the 20" Cinema Display (Aluminum). I bought the 22" along with my G4 Cube back in July 2000; the Cube was $1800 and the display around $2200... ouch!!!
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 :(
The amount of money I've spent on Apple products since I first started buying them in 1992-1993 (previously, had been a CP/M, DOS, OS/2 and unix gearhead) is hitting close to six figures now. :eek: If all that had been invested..... But back in 97, I did purchase several thousand bucks worth of AAPL when it was around $16 per share (pre split price basis) and accumulated a bunch between 1998-2000. Sold a quarter of my holdings after the internet bubble burst and let the rest ride even through the market doldrums that existed between 2001-2003 (didn't even considering dumping them back in 2003 when the stock had lost almost 80% of its value from its 2000 high as that for sure would have been locking in those paper losses). Those are now my core shares sitting in a Roth-IRA for retirement. Bought more between 2007 to mid-2010 (iPhone and iPad spurred those new positions) and seeing nice returns on that.
Just to bring this back on topic, the following pic was back in 2006 when I had just gotten the Mac Pro and I connected my QS G4 to the 22" ACD. It miraculously worked without having the case of the blinkies (that lasted for nearly two weeks before it went crazy again).
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh!
Yeesh... don't remind me. The inverter board in mine started doing the blink on blink off starting around late 2003. It was really intermittent at first and happened maybe once a month. Then in the thing really went crazy and was off more than it was on. Back then, the company that sold parts rarely had the board for the 22" model (the inverter board went bad in my 17" Studio Display in 2003 and they had tons of those in stock) and I really needed a monitor so I just ended up buying the 20" Cinema Display (Aluminum). I bought the 22" along with my G4 Cube back in July 2000; the Cube was $1800 and the display around $2200... ouch!!!
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 :(
The amount of money I've spent on Apple products since I first started buying them in 1992-1993 (previously, had been a CP/M, DOS, OS/2 and unix gearhead) is hitting close to six figures now. :eek: If all that had been invested..... But back in 97, I did purchase several thousand bucks worth of AAPL when it was around $16 per share (pre split price basis) and accumulated a bunch between 1998-2000. Sold a quarter of my holdings after the internet bubble burst and let the rest ride even through the market doldrums that existed between 2001-2003 (didn't even considering dumping them back in 2003 when the stock had lost almost 80% of its value from its 2000 high as that for sure would have been locking in those paper losses). Those are now my core shares sitting in a Roth-IRA for retirement. Bought more between 2007 to mid-2010 (iPhone and iPad spurred those new positions) and seeing nice returns on that.
Just to bring this back on topic, the following pic was back in 2006 when I had just gotten the Mac Pro and I connected my QS G4 to the 22" ACD. It miraculously worked without having the case of the blinkies (that lasted for nearly two weeks before it went crazy again).
VanNess
Jul 19, 11:43 PM
Slashdot posted an article today (http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/hollywood-agrees-to-burning-dvd-issue/2006/07/19/1153166455537.html) that announces the studios have struck a deal with an outfit called CinemaNow (never heard of them) in which the studios have finally agreed to allow users to burn a downloaded movie to a blank DVD. Here's what it says about Apple:
The announcement also previews a likely agreement between the major studios and Apple Computer, which is expected to expand the offerings on its popular iTunes online store to include big-studio movies.
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Instead of jumping the gun, someone needs to think a little harder about all of this in order to make it work in such as way that it's irresistible to the average consumer/movie buff, like iTunes is for music fans now. Hopefully, that someone is Apple.
The announcement also previews a likely agreement between the major studios and Apple Computer, which is expected to expand the offerings on its popular iTunes online store to include big-studio movies.
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Instead of jumping the gun, someone needs to think a little harder about all of this in order to make it work in such as way that it's irresistible to the average consumer/movie buff, like iTunes is for music fans now. Hopefully, that someone is Apple.
No comments:
Post a Comment