rmitchell248
Feb 28, 05:26 PM
Nice setup. What's the story behind the "double" windows, I've never seen anything like that before.
Back in the days before double or triple glassed windows, this was the only option for better insulation compared to a single window.
Thank you, Yes my office room here had single pane windows originally. The rest of the house has windows like what is on the outside but they are double pane from when the house was built. For some reason not in here. The house has a lot of history and the windows are beautiful so it would be a shame to take out the originals. They are the very thin glass that you can see the distortion when looking through(I am not sure what to call that). In this room the heat loss was bad but in order to preserve the old glass and original look outside this was a decent option We back up to a river that the american army crossed through during WWII and the last of the bullet holes from the fire fight in the back of the basement were just patched up with the latest renovation work.
Back in the days before double or triple glassed windows, this was the only option for better insulation compared to a single window.
Thank you, Yes my office room here had single pane windows originally. The rest of the house has windows like what is on the outside but they are double pane from when the house was built. For some reason not in here. The house has a lot of history and the windows are beautiful so it would be a shame to take out the originals. They are the very thin glass that you can see the distortion when looking through(I am not sure what to call that). In this room the heat loss was bad but in order to preserve the old glass and original look outside this was a decent option We back up to a river that the american army crossed through during WWII and the last of the bullet holes from the fire fight in the back of the basement were just patched up with the latest renovation work.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
milo
Aug 29, 10:49 AM
And Apple would be losing money with every sale.
Don't roll your eyes at me! I didn't say that they *would* do that, my point is merely that you can't make a blanket statement that yonah machines wouldn't sell. While companies like dell are announcing merom machines, they haven't stopped selling yonah, have they?
And how does pointing out that yonah will likely end up costing apple less than merom make you a "yonah fanboy"?
Don't roll your eyes at me! I didn't say that they *would* do that, my point is merely that you can't make a blanket statement that yonah machines wouldn't sell. While companies like dell are announcing merom machines, they haven't stopped selling yonah, have they?
And how does pointing out that yonah will likely end up costing apple less than merom make you a "yonah fanboy"?
slackpacker
Apr 13, 05:20 AM
Basically - All hardware has to come up with new drivers - I did not see anything about Plug-in support. And I see no reason why Apple will release boxed copies. But maybe they will to placate us all. FCX is what I wanted Apple to do. Trash the old and make something new and modern. Unfortunately the Original Programer of FC is no longer with Apple so the old code was unusable.But when you do that you have to re-build the feature set from scratch.
chinesechikn
Mar 26, 08:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
mdntcallr
Aug 24, 11:48 PM
lets hope they do more than just put in a new CPU.
ie a bigger better macmini
Also, i echo the thoughts of looking forward towards a new MBP (hopefully in new design also)
People also believe the iMac is due for a refresh, even new form.
To be honest, I hope Apple does over all those units and announces some killer new ipods.
basically to launch an entire new line of consumer products for the fall winter season. Would love that!!
ie a bigger better macmini
Also, i echo the thoughts of looking forward towards a new MBP (hopefully in new design also)
People also believe the iMac is due for a refresh, even new form.
To be honest, I hope Apple does over all those units and announces some killer new ipods.
basically to launch an entire new line of consumer products for the fall winter season. Would love that!!
smileyborg
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
I really like this ad. Maybe this will be the new direction of Apple's marketing?
mi5moav
Sep 7, 09:57 PM
This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
MacFly123
Mar 26, 11:06 PM
Sounds really awesome! And AppleTV was the first thing on my mind about this too..
Now, I know we're all wishing this to happen.
But is there already a method in place of being able to create this?
Can Developers do this....? But, they haven't got round to it yet?!
Or have Apple not opened this up to be created yet?
You can utilize it in some ways with the current APIs but in order to really AirPlay apps to the Apple TV, Apple would need to add some additional APIs for more functionality.
That is why this developer is doing this by way of the HDMI adaptor. Right now you can only AirPlay audio, pictures, or video, but not mirroring or pushing a separate video feed.
If Apple enables AirPlay to stream mirroring or more importantly separate feeds then BOOM, you have an entire ecosystem of apps INSTANTLY on the Apple TV that come from the iPad and iOS devices, but can be AirPlayed into Apple TV mode where the main canvas becomes the TV as the iDevice becomes the secondary canvas to augment the experience and act as the controller! THAT would be AWESOME :) I can really see Apple implementing apps in the Apple TV like this somehow instead of the traditional way people might be thinking. It makes a LOT of sense! :cool:
The second Apple announced AirPlay I predicted that that was how apps would come to the Apple TV, especially with games! I think we are about to see my prediction come true ;) It just makes too much sense! That way Apple still gets to keep the Apple TV pure to the content experience they say consumers want so bad, but if people want to surf the web, or play games, or use apps, they can do that too. It is the best of both worlds! AND it doesn't require an iDevice, but it sure as heck will end up selling millions more for Apple! More iDevices sold, more Apple TVs sold, WIN WIN!
Now, I know we're all wishing this to happen.
But is there already a method in place of being able to create this?
Can Developers do this....? But, they haven't got round to it yet?!
Or have Apple not opened this up to be created yet?
You can utilize it in some ways with the current APIs but in order to really AirPlay apps to the Apple TV, Apple would need to add some additional APIs for more functionality.
That is why this developer is doing this by way of the HDMI adaptor. Right now you can only AirPlay audio, pictures, or video, but not mirroring or pushing a separate video feed.
If Apple enables AirPlay to stream mirroring or more importantly separate feeds then BOOM, you have an entire ecosystem of apps INSTANTLY on the Apple TV that come from the iPad and iOS devices, but can be AirPlayed into Apple TV mode where the main canvas becomes the TV as the iDevice becomes the secondary canvas to augment the experience and act as the controller! THAT would be AWESOME :) I can really see Apple implementing apps in the Apple TV like this somehow instead of the traditional way people might be thinking. It makes a LOT of sense! :cool:
The second Apple announced AirPlay I predicted that that was how apps would come to the Apple TV, especially with games! I think we are about to see my prediction come true ;) It just makes too much sense! That way Apple still gets to keep the Apple TV pure to the content experience they say consumers want so bad, but if people want to surf the web, or play games, or use apps, they can do that too. It is the best of both worlds! AND it doesn't require an iDevice, but it sure as heck will end up selling millions more for Apple! More iDevices sold, more Apple TVs sold, WIN WIN!
jettredmont
May 2, 04:56 PM
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!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
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!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
hokka
Jan 2, 05:39 AM
new iPod that can be used to control & maybe mirror what's shown on the new iTV within range, and it uses BT headphones to avoid the problem of plug & unplug 3.5 jack all the time. All changed from a single dock...
*LTD*
Apr 3, 07:10 AM
The advert speaks volumes to me, I love it..... a select few won't, but it's just not possible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
It's alright. Apple knows exactly what they're doing when it comes to ads. I'm not sure what that negative critics' basis for comparison is. All those successful Xoom and Galaxy Tab ads that were responsible for record-breaking sales? LOL
It's alright. Apple knows exactly what they're doing when it comes to ads. I'm not sure what that negative critics' basis for comparison is. All those successful Xoom and Galaxy Tab ads that were responsible for record-breaking sales? LOL
segfaultdotorg
Apr 19, 04:26 PM
At this point it really doesn't make sense unless they're going to include a coupon for a free copy of OS X Lion.
bubba451
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
musicpyrite
Apr 4, 05:18 PM
Never!!! Fight the Man!!!
Long live Apple and its 5% market share.
Long live Apple and its 5% market share.
rxse7en
Nov 29, 03:48 PM
Its outputs are HDMI and component video. It is designed for HD content.
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
Would be cool if it could upscale streaming video to 1080i at least. I may forgo the iTV if there's ever a solution to stream vid from the Mac to the XBox 360 though. I must say, the 360 is a great piece of hardware at it's current price point. As others have pointed out, would be nice if the iTV supported 1080p over HDMI.
I loved my first car--'79 RX7 and have had several since. My current one is a heavily modified '91 Turbo II. Hopefully we'll see a 4th gen 7 some day.
B
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
Would be cool if it could upscale streaming video to 1080i at least. I may forgo the iTV if there's ever a solution to stream vid from the Mac to the XBox 360 though. I must say, the 360 is a great piece of hardware at it's current price point. As others have pointed out, would be nice if the iTV supported 1080p over HDMI.
I loved my first car--'79 RX7 and have had several since. My current one is a heavily modified '91 Turbo II. Hopefully we'll see a 4th gen 7 some day.
B
.jpg "19 Azerbaijan - Ell/Nikki")
fahadqureshi
Apr 26, 02:01 PM
i think the word app store in it self is generic, mainly since app is just short for application which is just another word for a program. but then again most people didn't use the word app or even applications widely enough until apple started using it, and instead used the more generic 'program'.
The only trademark apple is entitled to should be iAppstore especially since they chose to call their book store iBookstore instead of just 'Book Store'
Everyone should just blame Microsoft for having a "Add or Remove Programs" instead of a "Add or Remove Applications" in their control panel. :rolleyes:
that way applications or apps would have been a more generic term.
The only trademark apple is entitled to should be iAppstore especially since they chose to call their book store iBookstore instead of just 'Book Store'
Everyone should just blame Microsoft for having a "Add or Remove Programs" instead of a "Add or Remove Applications" in their control panel. :rolleyes:
that way applications or apps would have been a more generic term.
macquariumguy
Apr 11, 07:46 AM
I much prefer a stick to an automatic.
Luph67
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
My god that was so much better than the ridiculous iPhone ads.
Choppaface
Oct 23, 11:28 PM
I've got a dual 2.33ghz Core 2 Duo in my mac mini and its FASTTTTT the new mbps will be nice BUY BUY BUY
nonameowns
Mar 25, 09:01 PM
I can hook it up to my TV and play in 1080, but....why would I want to? I watched the video on YouTube, and compared to Gran Turismo 5, F1 DiRT 2 and the upcoming Shift 2, etc, this game looks like crap. And I get to play it with no wheel or even a gamepad? Thanks, but no thanks.
Why compare a mobile device to a game console? That's stupid. It's like comparing bananas to apples.
This is LAME and I'm say that in the nicest most passive agressive way. ;)
I'm coming from the standpoint of someone that owns a G25 racing wheel, a Track IR 5 head tracker, and racing games and sims all of which support my toys. Games that run dead-locked at 60 fps -- as I enable what's called VSYNC --- at a substantially higher detail level than any low-powered GPU/CPU can currently muster.
Sure it might be lame and inferior in your taste, but can you take your toys with you? Yeah. That's the power with the iPad.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
Why compare a mobile device to a game console? That's stupid. It's like comparing bananas to apples.
This is LAME and I'm say that in the nicest most passive agressive way. ;)
I'm coming from the standpoint of someone that owns a G25 racing wheel, a Track IR 5 head tracker, and racing games and sims all of which support my toys. Games that run dead-locked at 60 fps -- as I enable what's called VSYNC --- at a substantially higher detail level than any low-powered GPU/CPU can currently muster.
Sure it might be lame and inferior in your taste, but can you take your toys with you? Yeah. That's the power with the iPad.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
Yahgo
Sep 7, 10:13 AM
There has been a lot said here and elsewhere on what Apple is going to release. But let�s step back and look at the big picture for a moment and think through this process.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
mharpo
Sep 27, 02:07 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
guzhogi
Jun 22, 11:58 AM
I wouldn't mind an iOS-type OS on an iMac as long as it had some more features of a full-fledged desktop OS. As in:
-Multiple Users
-Printing
-Some kind of file system
-More apps of a creative side (ie movie editing, word processing, programming, etc.) instead of just media consuming apps
Note: this list is not exhaustive; there are many more features I'd like that I just can't think of at the moment.
Plus, some games/apps will need to be done, specifically those that need the accelerometers. I don't think people would want to swing around a 20/30 pound computer. But that would be a good way to make more money; people keep breaking them so they'll have to pay for repairs/new ones.
Who wants to be touching a vertically standing screen all the time, that's tiring!
Maybe this is why we didn't see OS X 10.7 info because it might include support for this...
I was actually hoping to see a completely new mac Pro with new very high res screens and wireless trackpad.
I doubt 10.7 will be such an overhaul. Probably more like Mac OS X 11.0 or a totally new naming scheme.
-Multiple Users
-Printing
-Some kind of file system
-More apps of a creative side (ie movie editing, word processing, programming, etc.) instead of just media consuming apps
Note: this list is not exhaustive; there are many more features I'd like that I just can't think of at the moment.
Plus, some games/apps will need to be done, specifically those that need the accelerometers. I don't think people would want to swing around a 20/30 pound computer. But that would be a good way to make more money; people keep breaking them so they'll have to pay for repairs/new ones.
Who wants to be touching a vertically standing screen all the time, that's tiring!
Maybe this is why we didn't see OS X 10.7 info because it might include support for this...
I was actually hoping to see a completely new mac Pro with new very high res screens and wireless trackpad.
I doubt 10.7 will be such an overhaul. Probably more like Mac OS X 11.0 or a totally new naming scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment