standingquiet
Jan 10, 04:10 PM
Now if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
The RS's are very nice i used to have a Mk 1 RS the limited edition blue one they did 4500 cars of.
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
Matt
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
The RS's are very nice i used to have a Mk 1 RS the limited edition blue one they did 4500 cars of.
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
Matt
anim8or
Sep 6, 08:52 AM
Does anyone think that as we have seen the Mac Mini's update was just a speed bump, that the MacBook will only see a speed bump too.
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
There has been a debate as to whether the MacBook will see 'merom' this year, i think that the evidence speaks for itself... ...not til next year.
Here is how i see it;
Mac Mini, MacBook White - Consumer models - Core Duo til late this year or early next
iMac, MacBook Black - Bridge between consumer and pro - Core 2 Duo (Possibly not in the BlackBook but perhaps as an option?)
Mac Pro, MacBook Pro - Pro Models - Core 2 Duo
Just my opinion... ...what does everyone else think?
benjs
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
If I buy Aperture 3, 4, and 5 on the app store I'll have spent $240.
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
I thought I heard him say that it was 'shipping' in June, in addition to the App Store. Can anyone else verify this?
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
I thought I heard him say that it was 'shipping' in June, in addition to the App Store. Can anyone else verify this?
OdduWon
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
Deep pockets or not, MS will have a struggle to find a niche. But at least they were smart enough to put in a radio.
Agreed, even though am/Fm is in decline, People STILL LOVE FM, there are some great indie college stations around. Which if i could listen to on my ipod i would. If every ipod had a tuner then people on campus could all listen, and experience the same thing. outside the station on campus they have speakers playing whats on air. People gather in the courtyard and socialize, at certain times probbably too. This could be a easy feature to add with big impact.
Also, :D , Perhaps the current iPod fm adapter will become the iStation/PodCaster? A light to signal on air, and others can tune in to hear your playlists or some type of browsing or podcast viewing emitted from the shuffle sized transmitter:rolleyes:
Agreed, even though am/Fm is in decline, People STILL LOVE FM, there are some great indie college stations around. Which if i could listen to on my ipod i would. If every ipod had a tuner then people on campus could all listen, and experience the same thing. outside the station on campus they have speakers playing whats on air. People gather in the courtyard and socialize, at certain times probbably too. This could be a easy feature to add with big impact.
Also, :D , Perhaps the current iPod fm adapter will become the iStation/PodCaster? A light to signal on air, and others can tune in to hear your playlists or some type of browsing or podcast viewing emitted from the shuffle sized transmitter:rolleyes:
Al Coholic
Apr 21, 11:56 AM
As soon as I saw the name Al Franken I stopped reading. What a dufus.
LOL!
LOL!
*LTD*
Apr 3, 02:00 PM
So we actually need sarcasm tags in forums now. :D
faroZ06
Apr 3, 01:31 AM
Agreed. Those ads killed my ability to defend Apple fandom by saying the snooty arrogance is just some peoples baseless perception.
Embarrassing.
There's an app for that was kinda good.
But if you don't have an iPhone, you can't do this? It just makes it look like a useless device.
Actually, I'm perfectly happy without any Apple stuff besides my iMac. I didn't have an iPod until a week ago, so I was using some tape player for music :D mainly because I didn't care enough about randomly listening to music to buy an iPod.
Embarrassing.
There's an app for that was kinda good.
But if you don't have an iPhone, you can't do this? It just makes it look like a useless device.
Actually, I'm perfectly happy without any Apple stuff besides my iMac. I didn't have an iPod until a week ago, so I was using some tape player for music :D mainly because I didn't care enough about randomly listening to music to buy an iPod.
foo*
Nov 24, 11:38 PM
It's also gonna be the most expensive Mac ever sold and I'm sure they want to give their customers their money's worth while at the same time giving their competition headaches. ;) :D
Certainly not the most expensive mac ever sold. The 40 Mhz II fx was shipping while the II ci sported an MSRP of over $8,000 at 25Mhz. Cheapest the ci sold for even at developer discount at the end of its amazingly long 4+ year run was over $3,300, and those were late 80's dollars.
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
Certainly not the most expensive mac ever sold. The 40 Mhz II fx was shipping while the II ci sported an MSRP of over $8,000 at 25Mhz. Cheapest the ci sold for even at developer discount at the end of its amazingly long 4+ year run was over $3,300, and those were late 80's dollars.
So to my mind, a few grand on a new machine these days is dirt cheap.
OllyW
Mar 22, 01:02 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy. I have back and forth e-mails with them stating they consider it a choice. One of my friends is a writer for Lesbians and spoke in front of congress on this issue 2 years ago. I was with her and she even stated that it was a choice to become a lesbian and it's now America's choice to accept it for all for choose this path.
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
I don't believe you, that's my opinion.
bobsentell
May 2, 04:46 PM
I wonder if it is time to drop the "Mac" from MacOS.....
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
lordonuthin
Mar 21, 03:29 PM
I guess I'm number 1 on the team now :cool:
qualleyiv
Nov 15, 10:30 AM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
OK, I'm hardly a programmer (PHP doesn't really count) but that's the exact same description that I've heard applied to the description of what it takes to vectorize a program (i.e. make it Alti-Vec optimized) [that and the process of making loops that can be unrolled]. So I've got to ask, is there some difference between those two concepts? If not, it sure seems like we would have a lot more multi-core enabled apps out there already...
lordonuthin
Mar 25, 12:24 PM
congrats to 4JNA for 6 million points!
Ditto! and of course to everyone else makin' points for us! :)
Ditto! and of course to everyone else makin' points for us! :)
alec
Jul 18, 10:33 AM
I think everyone has touched on an important issue with this: it is not a good that is going to be embraced by the public, at least anytime soon. Who really wants to rent a movie for a few dollars so they can watch it on their iPod (and can iPods even last through a whole movie??). Anyway, I'm not impressed and this smells of a 'too soon' move.
BrianMojo
Jul 19, 04:59 PM
nope just putting iTunes on the phone
Well, he clearly dismissed all current MP3/Phone integration setups and said that they're not just sitting around. It's no outright admission, but I'd say that's pretty revealing -- if he was refering to iTunes on a phone, I feel like he would've had a talking point ready for it. This seemed more like a "er, I just backed myself into this sentence" type thing.
Well, he clearly dismissed all current MP3/Phone integration setups and said that they're not just sitting around. It's no outright admission, but I'd say that's pretty revealing -- if he was refering to iTunes on a phone, I feel like he would've had a talking point ready for it. This seemed more like a "er, I just backed myself into this sentence" type thing.
richardsim7
Mar 22, 04:40 PM
Yeah but are they going to improve the quality? The DAC on the iPod Classic is bloody terrible! It makes me sad :(
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 2, 07:22 PM
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
You call that snow? PFFT. lol
266105
You call that snow? PFFT. lol
~Shard~
Sep 7, 11:47 PM
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
appleguy123
Jun 23, 01:56 AM
I feel justified that this is the main reason we never heard ANY thing about Mac OS X at the keynote AND the WWDC (as far as I know), and each new update seems to be just fixes and security updates. So, I think apple is working on iOS X, or what ever the touch screen Mac OS is.
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
SeattleMoose
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
please!!!!:rolleyes:
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 26, 02:11 PM
...Apple is turning into a company of douche bags.
So apple should just do nothing.
So apple should just do nothing.
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:04 PM
So are there any live updates?
FireStar
Oct 22, 07:03 PM
How are the Skullcandy Slider cases?
My friend's brother has one for his 3rd Gen and it looks pretty sturdy. But when I tried to take it off I couldn't get the top piece off, only the top piece. I didn't try that hard though.
My friend's brother has one for his 3rd Gen and it looks pretty sturdy. But when I tried to take it off I couldn't get the top piece off, only the top piece. I didn't try that hard though.
No comments:
Post a Comment