Benguitar
Nov 25, 11:48 PM
Better be safe than sorry, right Benguitar? :)
Doesn't look very safe to me.. First time you go under a bridge will probably be your last.
Yes, Better safe than sorry. :rolleyes:
Doesn't look very safe to me.. First time you go under a bridge will probably be your last.
Yes, Better safe than sorry. :rolleyes:
caspersoong
Apr 20, 03:38 AM
Hope Apple surprises us... And not just a Sandy Bridge upgrade alongside Thunderbolt.
ouimetnick
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 03:13 AM
2pm GMT
a456
Sep 1, 02:19 PM
At WWDC, Apple mentioned one of Leopard's features - 64 bit application support. Let's fast forward to Leopard's release day and look at Apple's line. I'm guessing that all all their machines will have 64-bit processors, but surely the difference in processors used in the Macbook, Macbook Pro, the iMac, and the mini, surely can't be just speed, and all using the Merom? The iMac will have Conroe, maybe an E6600.
If the iMac had the Conroe and this is more powerful than the Merom wouldn't this continue to place the processing power of the consumer desktop above the power of the 'pro' laptop, which has been one of the problems for some time now? If they both had Merom at least they would be equal. Don't know about the Macbook and the Mini though, I guess the distinction is that they don't have separate graphics cards.
If the iMac had the Conroe and this is more powerful than the Merom wouldn't this continue to place the processing power of the consumer desktop above the power of the 'pro' laptop, which has been one of the problems for some time now? If they both had Merom at least they would be equal. Don't know about the Macbook and the Mini though, I guess the distinction is that they don't have separate graphics cards.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:49 AM
The real deal about codecs from Wikepedia:
HD DVD:
the same video compression techniques: MPEG-2, Video Codec 1 (VC1) and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.
HD DVD can be mastered with up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
BD:
decode at least the following codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. Realistically, when using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM. The two more advanced video codecs can typically attain four hours of high quality video.
For audio, BD-ROM supports up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
So, easily seen. The employ the exact same codecs. The only difference is:
BD:
Stricter DRM control
Much More Scratch Resistant
Greater future capacites
HD-DVD:
Cheaper to manufacture
And if Toshiba can make a 6-layer disc... well then that means a 90GB HD-DVD..... not bad. That would pull it in right above the total capacity of my PB HD.
HD DVD:
the same video compression techniques: MPEG-2, Video Codec 1 (VC1) and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.
HD DVD can be mastered with up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
BD:
decode at least the following codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. Realistically, when using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM. The two more advanced video codecs can typically attain four hours of high quality video.
For audio, BD-ROM supports up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
So, easily seen. The employ the exact same codecs. The only difference is:
BD:
Stricter DRM control
Much More Scratch Resistant
Greater future capacites
HD-DVD:
Cheaper to manufacture
And if Toshiba can make a 6-layer disc... well then that means a 90GB HD-DVD..... not bad. That would pull it in right above the total capacity of my PB HD.
mrblack927
Mar 31, 07:06 AM
I haven't noticed too many aesthetic differences (besides iCal of course) but it does feel overall smoother than DP1 to me. You can tell Apple is working hard to get this ready for prime time.
juanm
Jan 1, 06:45 PM
Steve will take the stage and announce that they have created artificial life that can sing every song on your iPod while cleaning your house, he says they will be called PodPeople.:rolleyes:
Or maybe... iRobot? :D
Sorry, but I had to say it.
Or maybe... iRobot? :D
Sorry, but I had to say it.
slffl
Apr 26, 09:17 PM
OMG you should see how many people here in Seattle refer to all Android phones as 'Droids'. Verizon better start protecting that ***** as it's already become the name for all Android phones for the 'think they know what they are talking about' android fans.
Northgrove
May 3, 05:40 AM
In Lion a user simply needs to invoke the Launchpad, click and hold on the icon of the application they wish to delete, and when the icons begin to wiggle a cross appears on icons of apps installed via the Mac App Store. Clicking this cross brings up the message "Are you sure you want to delete the application...?", and clicking 'Delete' confirms and removes the app.
I hope I can right-click and delete them too. Pointless to click and wait while holding if you have an input device with more than one button... :rolleyes:
I hope I can right-click and delete them too. Pointless to click and wait while holding if you have an input device with more than one button... :rolleyes:
twoodcc
May 3, 11:07 AM
I don't use my 09 MP for anything real intense but even having several apps going it doesn't take anything out of folding, I get the same times regardless.
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
jp102235
Mar 25, 04:08 PM
There's still the practical limitations of using a touchscreen as a control device, though. It's never going to be as tactile as a controller with buttons and joysticks. Not to mention having the HDMI adaptor sticking out of the side of the iPad while you're holding it to play games...
Apart from that, I'm glad to see the iPad is able to hold its own as a gaming machine.
amazing, especially if you can build a steering wheel receptacle that holds the ipad, and converts the hdmi out to a wireless signal (an hdmi to ATSC would be a perfect soln... hmmm... I'll need an analog design engineer to help me out though...)
like this:
http://www.ismashphone.com/2009/08/where-the-rubber-meets-the-road-iphone-accessories.html
http://www.ismashphone.com/2010/02/its-the-wheel-thing-ipad-steeringwheel-controller-in-the-offing.html
Apart from that, I'm glad to see the iPad is able to hold its own as a gaming machine.
amazing, especially if you can build a steering wheel receptacle that holds the ipad, and converts the hdmi out to a wireless signal (an hdmi to ATSC would be a perfect soln... hmmm... I'll need an analog design engineer to help me out though...)
like this:
http://www.ismashphone.com/2009/08/where-the-rubber-meets-the-road-iphone-accessories.html
http://www.ismashphone.com/2010/02/its-the-wheel-thing-ipad-steeringwheel-controller-in-the-offing.html
jcricket
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I really hope you are correct about FR2 in Leopard. However...
I do think you need a TV-card in the computer too. Given Apples philosophy about simplicity, I doubt they will have a stand alone TV-reciever. Furthermore, I just can't see Apple selling MP with a TV-card. So my guess is that they will make a dedicated computer. Still I am most likely wrong... as always...:p
My dream mini has a HD-DVD player, HDMI/DVI out, optical audio out (mainly important for those that want to connect to a surround sound receiver) and add some Netflix-like movie download subscription service added to iTunes. Put those together with space for a 3.5" hard drive and run Front Row 2.0 and I'd be psyched.
I really want the Mac Mini to be a basic TV hub device. It doesn't have to have a DVR, cable card slots or TV tuners built-in. Sure, if Apple could build an all-in-one box that's better than my HR10-250 (HD Tivo for DirecTV) or the upcoming Series 3 from Tivo that would be great. But for now I'd be happy with one box for TV watching (HR10-250) and one box for everything else (DVDs, music, movie downloading, casual web surfing).
I do think you need a TV-card in the computer too. Given Apples philosophy about simplicity, I doubt they will have a stand alone TV-reciever. Furthermore, I just can't see Apple selling MP with a TV-card. So my guess is that they will make a dedicated computer. Still I am most likely wrong... as always...:p
My dream mini has a HD-DVD player, HDMI/DVI out, optical audio out (mainly important for those that want to connect to a surround sound receiver) and add some Netflix-like movie download subscription service added to iTunes. Put those together with space for a 3.5" hard drive and run Front Row 2.0 and I'd be psyched.
I really want the Mac Mini to be a basic TV hub device. It doesn't have to have a DVR, cable card slots or TV tuners built-in. Sure, if Apple could build an all-in-one box that's better than my HR10-250 (HD Tivo for DirecTV) or the upcoming Series 3 from Tivo that would be great. But for now I'd be happy with one box for TV watching (HR10-250) and one box for everything else (DVDs, music, movie downloading, casual web surfing).
MacFan782040
Nov 27, 03:28 PM
Well think about it...all Apple's consumer products have iSights built in for "video-confrencing out of the box". If they want to push the MacMini, they will need a low-end display with a built-in iSight for this.
Sell it seperately at $249.
Maybe bundle a MacMini/display together?
MacMini- $599
bundled display- $200
$799 for a computer/display + mouse/keyboard
...your talking less than $900 for a full Apple system-not bad!
*And for everyone saying 17" is too small... Think of all the people who bought MacBooks at 13.3"! Nobody I know that has one uses an external display.
Sell it seperately at $249.
Maybe bundle a MacMini/display together?
MacMini- $599
bundled display- $200
$799 for a computer/display + mouse/keyboard
...your talking less than $900 for a full Apple system-not bad!
*And for everyone saying 17" is too small... Think of all the people who bought MacBooks at 13.3"! Nobody I know that has one uses an external display.
ajiuo
Apr 9, 07:16 PM
WOW!!! iCal looks *********g UGLY... I hope they add an option to use a standard gray toolbar area... That seems so unlike apple to do something like that.
Heh.. What if they give everything that look :). I think I would switch to windows if they did that..
Heh.. What if they give everything that look :). I think I would switch to windows if they did that..
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 07:03 PM
seems like they may be targeting Gaddafi now ...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
ipodG8TR
Sep 7, 10:10 AM
When will the studios get a clue. I can rent movies almost anywhere for a couple dollars (only $1 at the grocery store vending machine with my debit card). So, why buy?
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
jakeDude
Nov 15, 02:11 PM
Programmers should make the effort to accommodate upcoming multi-core designs into their software development cycle. Once a new system is released, it should be a minimal effort to test and tweak the software for the new system and quickly release an update, thus making their customers only wait a week or two from when the systems first ship as opposed to several weeks/months .
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
MattyMac
Aug 6, 09:12 PM
It's like Christmas Eve:D
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 10:17 PM
You really are worried that Final Cut Pro will not be more complicated than iMovie??!
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
No, I'm worried that FCP could be dumbed down too much to properly do the job at hand.
Lethal
twoodcc
Oct 16, 11:42 PM
I know what you mean, my small house keeps toasty just from the computers running. The problem is getting the heat moved from the computer room... thus a box fan in the door pushing in cool air at the bottom.
yeah i might have to invest in a fan. this is crazy in my place. the air on when it's 45 degrees outside! :eek:
Thanks, and sorry I just moved past you:D for now anyway...
on no, i'm glad your able to put up those numbers. i would if it wasn't for the heat in this little apartment
yeah i might have to invest in a fan. this is crazy in my place. the air on when it's 45 degrees outside! :eek:
Thanks, and sorry I just moved past you:D for now anyway...
on no, i'm glad your able to put up those numbers. i would if it wasn't for the heat in this little apartment
viggin
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
dethmaShine
May 2, 06:01 PM
Positioning of apps without click and hold WORKS.
dalvin200
Oct 23, 09:33 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
same here..
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
same here..
No comments:
Post a Comment