Blakeasd
May 2, 06:34 PM
PEOPLE:
It's just a popover box allowing you to delete an app... it's not over simplification, it allows the user to easily delete an app.
It's just a popover box allowing you to delete an app... it's not over simplification, it allows the user to easily delete an app.
Danksi
Dec 31, 12:54 AM
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
This is how iTV was originally presented, at least from what I recall, accessing your iTunes/iPhoto content on a TV. There's a hint there may be more, but I don't think so.
My interest is the convenience of not having to plug my iBook into the TV and then mount the media drive inside the MacPro located upstairs, to watch some family movies or something I've downloaded. This certainly isn't convenient for the rest of the family.
I've been shoving everything Music/Video related into iTunes, which has made access loads easier/quicker from both the iBook and my wife's Windows XP laptop (using iTunes) - but it's still not on the TV, without cables etc (and no remote)
Unfortunately I've also noticed that not all movies/video-podcasts are shared properly, some are fixed by re-importing, some by re-tagging with 'lostify', but others are stubborn - this 'bug' needs fixing!
This is how iTV was originally presented, at least from what I recall, accessing your iTunes/iPhoto content on a TV. There's a hint there may be more, but I don't think so.
My interest is the convenience of not having to plug my iBook into the TV and then mount the media drive inside the MacPro located upstairs, to watch some family movies or something I've downloaded. This certainly isn't convenient for the rest of the family.
I've been shoving everything Music/Video related into iTunes, which has made access loads easier/quicker from both the iBook and my wife's Windows XP laptop (using iTunes) - but it's still not on the TV, without cables etc (and no remote)
Unfortunately I've also noticed that not all movies/video-podcasts are shared properly, some are fixed by re-importing, some by re-tagging with 'lostify', but others are stubborn - this 'bug' needs fixing!
spcdust
Apr 20, 07:08 AM
Sold my late 2009 iMac yesterday in anticipation of the iMac refresh so this is positive news for me. However, I may hold off until the end of May and hopefully pick myself up an iPod Touch using my education discount and the iPod Rebate Back-To-School Promo (that's if Apple are true to form and run this promo again).
Regarding GPU - prepare to be disappointed as Apple always seem to under deliver in this respect with regards to the iMac - form over performance dictates this i'm afraid. Has anyone considered they may even stick with the current iMac GPU offering - disappointing I know but still possible. If we see an upgrade (and I sincerely hope we do) I guess we're, at best, looking at a 6950 which I'd be happy with, I guess a very unlikely outside chance would be the 6970 (Pipe dream me thinks)?
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
Regarding GPU - prepare to be disappointed as Apple always seem to under deliver in this respect with regards to the iMac - form over performance dictates this i'm afraid. Has anyone considered they may even stick with the current iMac GPU offering - disappointing I know but still possible. If we see an upgrade (and I sincerely hope we do) I guess we're, at best, looking at a 6950 which I'd be happy with, I guess a very unlikely outside chance would be the 6970 (Pipe dream me thinks)?
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
crap freakboy
Jul 18, 04:03 AM
Until they at least come close to matching the model that Mac The Ripper, Toast and Blockbuster 3 dvd postal rental gives me, I'll have to decline the Studios kind offer regarding rental rather than ownership.;)
iStudentUK
Mar 28, 02:34 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
A complete douche, I'd say.
Why is he a douche? Because he uses metaphoric language? He seems like a qualified high level guest. And he didn't say "US European Command". YOU are the one who introduced those "2 letters". I'm just quoting what he said.
Considering that the US sent like 100 tomahawks or whatever out of like 102, or something like that... And the US also has an "air field" there too. Not only in nearby countries, but a huge mobile one! Not to mention large fleets of intercontinental bombers. How do you know he's exagerating? You have a personal recon satelite overlooking that area? :rolleyes:
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
A complete douche, I'd say.
Why is he a douche? Because he uses metaphoric language? He seems like a qualified high level guest. And he didn't say "US European Command". YOU are the one who introduced those "2 letters". I'm just quoting what he said.
Considering that the US sent like 100 tomahawks or whatever out of like 102, or something like that... And the US also has an "air field" there too. Not only in nearby countries, but a huge mobile one! Not to mention large fleets of intercontinental bombers. How do you know he's exagerating? You have a personal recon satelite overlooking that area? :rolleyes:
You are very selective with your figures- both the French and Italians also have carriers in position, the US didn't send all but two of the missiles. The French sent the first planes in and as far as I know are the only nation to have engaged Libyan planes.
Like I said, about 50% of the planes involved are US. Which makes sense as the US has a bigger airforce than France/UK (and the rest of the coalition) which is what you would expect from a country with many more people!
Perhaps it us you that doesnt like the fact that the US isn't the only real player here? The US, France or UK could do this whole thing alone- it isn't that big an operation! Or perhaps, as firestarter points out, you don't like the idea of US working as NATO currently headed by a Canadian?
This is a true coalition with all sorts of countires involved, and we should be happy about that.
CaptMurdock
Nov 25, 02:52 PM
For my son's X-Box...
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/88/53/70/11/0088537011661_300X300.jpg
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/88/53/70/11/0088537011661_300X300.jpg
KnightWRX
Apr 10, 05:34 PM
That's because in the US most of us drive on two types of roads, crowded ones and dead straight ones. Automatics are superior on crowded ones and it doesn't matter on straight ones.
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
Actually, you're wrong on both premise. On crowded roads, manuals are better. No need to constantly hit the brakes, you can better control a car's speed with a manual with compression and clutch manipulation. In traffic, I hardly ever touch the brakes.
On straight roads, manual is again better. For passing, a quick throttle blip/downshift gives you better boost than waiting for an automatic to kick in as you stomp the pedal.
It's just that Americans tend to not like driving and anything that isolates them from the road is considered superior. Any driving enthousiast doesn't mind a clutch and a stick, no matter the situation.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 31, 01:00 PM
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
pixelvandal
Sep 6, 07:48 PM
I can not believe how long it has taken me to finally bother to register here...And it has taken the release of an iMac to do it. I have never wanted an iMac, I've always been a 'pro' user - video editor, shake operator etc. I am still perfectly happy using my G5, plenty of grunt, and to be honest - wasn't really tempted to buy a MacPro, not for a little while anyway.
Then Apple drops the 24" iMac & I'm suddenly thinking, OMG I wan't one of those, in fact i think I will 'retire' my G5 (to a render machine anyway)...then I start reading the same retarded posts about Apple not having a mid sized desktop machine, complaining that they want more hard drive bays, that they 'have' to buy an iMac as a AIO...
For god sake's wake up & smell the roses...buy the iMac, stick your existing monitor on it & have twice the desktop...Apple will never release a mid-sized tower...
Who really wants more internal drives anyway? I have no less than eight external firewire drives, I fill them up so quickly that I wouldn't want to have them internal anyway...so stop complaing and shell out for an external drive - they're much more flexible & with FW800 plenty speedy - even for HD capture.
And do we honestly need to complain about the graphics card again??? Get over it the 7600 is a fine card, after all this is a 'consumer' workstation. If you really want to stick ten drives in your machine, six video cards, 4000Gb of ram - buy a MacPro - it's what they are built for!
I realise that you can never satisfy everyone all the time, but as a loooonnnngggg time Apple user I can honestly say that Apple are providing us with plenty of options, realistically more than ever before.
PS - please stop whinging about your MB & MBP in the iMac thread, I'm sure there's more appropriate venues...
Then Apple drops the 24" iMac & I'm suddenly thinking, OMG I wan't one of those, in fact i think I will 'retire' my G5 (to a render machine anyway)...then I start reading the same retarded posts about Apple not having a mid sized desktop machine, complaining that they want more hard drive bays, that they 'have' to buy an iMac as a AIO...
For god sake's wake up & smell the roses...buy the iMac, stick your existing monitor on it & have twice the desktop...Apple will never release a mid-sized tower...
Who really wants more internal drives anyway? I have no less than eight external firewire drives, I fill them up so quickly that I wouldn't want to have them internal anyway...so stop complaing and shell out for an external drive - they're much more flexible & with FW800 plenty speedy - even for HD capture.
And do we honestly need to complain about the graphics card again??? Get over it the 7600 is a fine card, after all this is a 'consumer' workstation. If you really want to stick ten drives in your machine, six video cards, 4000Gb of ram - buy a MacPro - it's what they are built for!
I realise that you can never satisfy everyone all the time, but as a loooonnnngggg time Apple user I can honestly say that Apple are providing us with plenty of options, realistically more than ever before.
PS - please stop whinging about your MB & MBP in the iMac thread, I'm sure there's more appropriate venues...
twoodcc
Oct 4, 11:54 AM
well i finally made it to 7 digits. over 1 million points for folding@home. now we just need more people to get the team striving again
RebootD
Apr 12, 08:48 PM
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Good summery. Now they just need to update FCE! It's been what? 4 years?
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Good summery. Now they just need to update FCE! It's been what? 4 years?
kadajawi
Sep 7, 04:31 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
BornAgainMac
Sep 6, 09:14 AM
These new Mac Mini's don't seem like a great deal anymore. I think it was done on purpose to get people to upscale to a higher model.
koobcamuk
Jan 12, 05:47 AM
Intriguing.
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
More like Nike, surely? :P
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
More like Nike, surely? :P
iMikeT
Nov 28, 05:08 PM
It's funny when Soledad asks if it can do email. She might have thought so because of its size compared with the Blackberry. And then she whips out the shuffle... OMG that is classic.
Does anyone remember Soledad in a kid's computer TV show some years back? She played a computer....
I love how the guy presenting the Zune was speechless after Soledad brings out her shuffle.:D
Does anyone remember Soledad in a kid's computer TV show some years back? She played a computer....
I love how the guy presenting the Zune was speechless after Soledad brings out her shuffle.:D
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Still a monster, just a smaller monster. Kinda like 6970 is to Godzukei what 6990 is to Godzilla. ;)
Just for you buddy:) IMO, you could beat Godzilla to death with this
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Radeon-HD-6990,3-H-278765-13.jpg
Just for you buddy:) IMO, you could beat Godzilla to death with this
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Radeon-HD-6990,3-H-278765-13.jpg
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 02:14 PM
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
Is the Apple Store a store that sells Apple ? No. It's then not descriptive. Does someone in the business of selling Apples can say their "Lakeshore Apple Store" is an "Apple Store" since they do sell apples ? Yes, because trademarks are limited in the scope. Apple's trademark on "Apple Store" would only apply in a computer/software business sense, not to the larger sense of every other business/economic field.
Just like I could then open a shoe store and call it "Apple Store". Though that wouldn't make much sense, but whatever...
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
We've been over the whole App thing in the other threads, with many people finding references to App as far back as the 80s. Want to go through it again ? It has been part of the lexicon for quite a while, ever since Application has been around, it has basically been shortened to app.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
Is the Apple Store a store that sells Apple ? No. It's then not descriptive. Does someone in the business of selling Apples can say their "Lakeshore Apple Store" is an "Apple Store" since they do sell apples ? Yes, because trademarks are limited in the scope. Apple's trademark on "Apple Store" would only apply in a computer/software business sense, not to the larger sense of every other business/economic field.
Just like I could then open a shoe store and call it "Apple Store". Though that wouldn't make much sense, but whatever...
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
We've been over the whole App thing in the other threads, with many people finding references to App as far back as the 80s. Want to go through it again ? It has been part of the lexicon for quite a while, ever since Application has been around, it has basically been shortened to app.
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 04:16 PM
Perhaps AIR is an acronym?
Apple I______ R______ :)
Interesting... Very interesting... Apple InfaRed... Apple Internet Reader... Apple Instruction Ripper...
Apple I______ R______ :)
Interesting... Very interesting... Apple InfaRed... Apple Internet Reader... Apple Instruction Ripper...
Dont Hurt Me
Sep 1, 02:52 PM
Apple used to have all-in-ones, consumer towers, pro towers, etc. Remember the PowerMac 6400? Too many products is too confusing for the consumer. If that means that a couple of people can't get the exact configuration they want, so be it.Apple still needs to sell a not overpriced cube, Millions,perhaps billions have monitors that are just fine. What they need is a machine between near nothing Mini and workstation MacPro. Its been said a million times so here it is again.:)
kresh
Jul 19, 07:27 PM
Such short memories...
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
Ah, those were the days.
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
Ah, those were the days.
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
BornAgainMac
Sep 6, 09:14 AM
These new Mac Mini's don't seem like a great deal anymore. I think it was done on purpose to get people to upscale to a higher model.
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.
popelife
Jan 3, 10:48 AM
Anyway do you guys think a ultra portable Apple laptop is in the works?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I would have thought this was a certainty, but I think it's unlikely to be ready for MacWorld. Perhaps when a MBP redesign comes along (In conjunction with Santa Rosa?)
New mobile processors from Intel arrive this month that make it all possible.
If by some miracle there is a smaller laptop at MW, I think it'll be a 12" MacBook, rather than a MBP.
A small MBP depends on finding a suitable low-power GPU, because otherwise there's not much to differentiate MB and MBP.
See subnotebook discussion on the portables forum.
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I would have thought this was a certainty, but I think it's unlikely to be ready for MacWorld. Perhaps when a MBP redesign comes along (In conjunction with Santa Rosa?)
New mobile processors from Intel arrive this month that make it all possible.
If by some miracle there is a smaller laptop at MW, I think it'll be a 12" MacBook, rather than a MBP.
A small MBP depends on finding a suitable low-power GPU, because otherwise there's not much to differentiate MB and MBP.
See subnotebook discussion on the portables forum.
OhEsTen
Nov 15, 10:50 AM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
Actually, it's a little known fact that Steve Ballmer frequents this site.... So I attribute all the negative votes to him clicking the "negative" button until he gets tired.... as you can see he doesn't have very much endurance....
Actually, it's a little known fact that Steve Ballmer frequents this site.... So I attribute all the negative votes to him clicking the "negative" button until he gets tired.... as you can see he doesn't have very much endurance....
No comments:
Post a Comment