Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 07:41 PM
in germany though it means you are banned from the left lane if it takes you so long to hit 200 ;)
Apparently the diesel Cruze tops out at 210 km/h (130ish mph); I'm somewhat surprised it goes that fast, though it has decent power and torque. My 1999 Nissan Altima manual was governed to 120mph, and although I did hit 120 in it once (:o), it had over 1500rpms left before redline, so it could probably have hit 130mph or more.
Apparently the diesel Cruze tops out at 210 km/h (130ish mph); I'm somewhat surprised it goes that fast, though it has decent power and torque. My 1999 Nissan Altima manual was governed to 120mph, and although I did hit 120 in it once (:o), it had over 1500rpms left before redline, so it could probably have hit 130mph or more.
logandzwon
Sep 14, 02:01 PM
...my iPhone 4 still gets the best reception of any phone I've ever owned, regardless of how I hold it or whether or not it has a case on it...
same here
same here
admanimal
Mar 30, 11:37 PM
Update isn't showing up in App Store for me. Any ideas? :(
It's not an update, you have to get a new code and redeem it.
It's not an update, you have to get a new code and redeem it.
toddybody
Apr 19, 11:29 AM
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Kingsly
Sep 6, 06:08 PM
Makes sense. Steve is, after all, a major player at Disney.
My guess: Disney and Lions gate now, more in a month or so.
It would be nice to have a streaming service, in which you pay for a netflix type price model and are allowed to stream movies on demand.... talk about bandwidth charges!!
My guess: Disney and Lions gate now, more in a month or so.
It would be nice to have a streaming service, in which you pay for a netflix type price model and are allowed to stream movies on demand.... talk about bandwidth charges!!
shartypants
Sep 14, 09:03 AM
And I hold strong on not renewing my magazine subscription!
Mattsasa
Mar 22, 03:49 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
ottoworks
Nov 28, 11:24 AM
I've been watching Zune slip in the Amazon rankings for days. It's been a steady decline, and as of now it's 97th in Electronics. A few more hours, and, perhaps: bye bye!
Cheers,
Otto
Cheers,
Otto
Lollypop
Aug 7, 02:25 AM
SOAP is a protocol that passes XML over HTTP......it basically allows client apps to access data from remote servers.
Applescript has some tools to make it easy....if you want to use applescript, but Cocoa really doesn't. You have to hard code every function in a wrapper library to make the HTTP call, get the parsed resposnes, etc
In Microsoft.NET, you add a "Web Reference" to your project, it scans the WDSL webservice description file on the internet to figure out what functions are there, and then builds a C# class that acts like its a local peice of code. You just call the functions natively from your program, and you'd never know you are talking to a remote server. If the server program changes, one click in your client project updates that stub-proxy file to the newest WDSL, click compile and bam, you have access to the latest and greatest functions from the server.
With Xcode......you really have to do alot of work by hand. We have a web service with thousands of functions to access our ecommerce system, we want to make a Mac OS native version of our client, but the shear amount of time spent making/maintaining a proxy stub in Xcode by hand would be more than the amount of work porting the user interface. I'm really hoping they automate this!
Cool! I have writen a few of applications that use the RPC mechanism in JAVA, but like I said, that was ages ago. My MS development skills ended with VB6, and even in comparison I feel XCode needs some work.
Wouldn't that mean that Adium needs the upgrade? ;-)
LOL, I does actaully ye, but if apple want to compete they desperately need to do something to iChat, especially on their own platfrom where there is another application that is far supperior to what they offer (and few will disagree with this statement), its just a shame!
Applescript has some tools to make it easy....if you want to use applescript, but Cocoa really doesn't. You have to hard code every function in a wrapper library to make the HTTP call, get the parsed resposnes, etc
In Microsoft.NET, you add a "Web Reference" to your project, it scans the WDSL webservice description file on the internet to figure out what functions are there, and then builds a C# class that acts like its a local peice of code. You just call the functions natively from your program, and you'd never know you are talking to a remote server. If the server program changes, one click in your client project updates that stub-proxy file to the newest WDSL, click compile and bam, you have access to the latest and greatest functions from the server.
With Xcode......you really have to do alot of work by hand. We have a web service with thousands of functions to access our ecommerce system, we want to make a Mac OS native version of our client, but the shear amount of time spent making/maintaining a proxy stub in Xcode by hand would be more than the amount of work porting the user interface. I'm really hoping they automate this!
Cool! I have writen a few of applications that use the RPC mechanism in JAVA, but like I said, that was ages ago. My MS development skills ended with VB6, and even in comparison I feel XCode needs some work.
Wouldn't that mean that Adium needs the upgrade? ;-)
LOL, I does actaully ye, but if apple want to compete they desperately need to do something to iChat, especially on their own platfrom where there is another application that is far supperior to what they offer (and few will disagree with this statement), its just a shame!
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
nilk
Mar 25, 01:50 PM
You can upgrade to the latest 5870 card if you wanted to right now. It might not be 'officially' supported but you can still do it.
Supposedly the 5870 won't work on Mac Pro 1,1 with specific firmware (MP11.005C.B08 won't work).
From a comment at store.apple.com:
With regard to the Mac Pro 1,1, it apparently depends on your system's firmware and your version of Mac OS X. If your firmware version is MP11.005C.B00 or MP11.005D.B00, it should work. If your Mac Pro's firmware version is MP11.005C.B08, it will NOT work. If you have the correct firmware, you must have at least Snow Leopard 10.6.4 to use the card to its fullest.
Supposedly the 5870 won't work on Mac Pro 1,1 with specific firmware (MP11.005C.B08 won't work).
From a comment at store.apple.com:
With regard to the Mac Pro 1,1, it apparently depends on your system's firmware and your version of Mac OS X. If your firmware version is MP11.005C.B00 or MP11.005D.B00, it should work. If your Mac Pro's firmware version is MP11.005C.B08, it will NOT work. If you have the correct firmware, you must have at least Snow Leopard 10.6.4 to use the card to its fullest.
kyeblue
Aug 29, 11:41 AM
Incredibly underwhelming.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
This is exactly what I am crying for. A headless mac between pro and mini that i can hook it to my HDTV. Not because mac pro is too expensive, it doesn't look nice in my living room.
Will not be surprised if mini also gets a price cut to $499 and $599. I am happy with G4.
If they're going to stay yonah, at least bump the clock speed more than that.
The only upside to this is that it leaves a HUGE gap between the mini and Pro, could mean that apple really is planning a conroe minitower/pizzabox/mediacenter.
That, and the fact that ThinkSecret is NEVER right. EVER.
This is exactly what I am crying for. A headless mac between pro and mini that i can hook it to my HDTV. Not because mac pro is too expensive, it doesn't look nice in my living room.
Will not be surprised if mini also gets a price cut to $499 and $599. I am happy with G4.
swingerofbirch
Jul 19, 06:39 PM
I didn't hear the entire conference call--did anyone ask about the virtual slave labor they've got going on in China?
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
*LTD*
Apr 2, 09:31 PM
A brilliant show, typical of Apple.
With the products to back it up.
With the products to back it up.
AidenShaw
Nov 29, 08:37 PM
Living room, car, blah blah blah.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
vand0576
Sep 1, 12:22 PM
I'd really like to see that extra space house more USB ports and PCI slots, or even a eSATA port to make add on HDD space perform like it were right on the motherboard.
miketcool
Jan 1, 06:31 PM
Thank you Human Resources for moving my next payday to Jan. 9th.
>signed<
Soon To Be Broke-Again
>signed<
Soon To Be Broke-Again
skinniezinho
Nov 26, 04:26 PM
Swatch New Gent "black Rebel"
http://www.kstreetwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Swatch-New-Gent-Watches-03.jpeg
Seagate Momentus XT 500Gb 32Mb Cache 4Gb "SSD"
http://www.yugatech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/seagate-momentus-xt.jpg
http://www.kstreetwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Swatch-New-Gent-Watches-03.jpeg
Seagate Momentus XT 500Gb 32Mb Cache 4Gb "SSD"
http://www.yugatech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/seagate-momentus-xt.jpg
Goldfinger
Aug 31, 12:12 PM
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-08-31/#5869
What about this ? :)
What about this ? :)
NeuralControl
Jan 23, 10:58 PM
My Baby
Is that the 2011 or 2010? How is it treating you so far? Looks amazing.
Is that the 2011 or 2010? How is it treating you so far? Looks amazing.
mrapplegate
Apr 1, 10:41 AM
Bingo! Now how do I remove the others? :confused:
Did you try Command-Option-Control-Click?
Oops, that does not work my bad. At least for me. Glad I don't use Launchpad.
Did you try Command-Option-Control-Click?
Oops, that does not work my bad. At least for me. Glad I don't use Launchpad.
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:33 PM
Says who? AppleInsider is now confirming this story. They have been dead-on accurate all year. Read 'em and weep (I'd like to see Conroe instead of Merom, but it ain't happenin').If iMacs don't get Conroe inside that is going to be SO WEAK. The Power GAP between all Macs and the Mac Pro would be so wide you could drive a truck through it. Makes no sense to me for Conroe to not go into something. Right now that's only iMac. Market for Conroe headless Mac has got to be huge. :confused: :eek: :(
2.33GHz is the top of Merom folks. How can that be the best Apple can offer non Mac Pro customers? Seems rediculous. There has got to be a home for Conroe Processors in iMacs or a new mid-tower.
2.33GHz is the top of Merom folks. How can that be the best Apple can offer non Mac Pro customers? Seems rediculous. There has got to be a home for Conroe Processors in iMacs or a new mid-tower.
Cliff3
Jan 27, 07:21 PM
http://www.coates3.com/gallery2/d/44261-1/painted+grill-0270.jpg
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
JRM PowerPod
Aug 6, 11:19 PM
Or when there are multiple threads analyzing a photograph of a banner with dozens of icons on it, and nobody notices the photo also shows (the same) two covered banners. :)
Don't be like that, i noticed it.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2677363#post2677363
But that doesn't mean everyone isnt going nuts, because they are. This is worse than any build up to an Apple event i've ever remembered
Don't be like that, i noticed it.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2677363#post2677363
But that doesn't mean everyone isnt going nuts, because they are. This is worse than any build up to an Apple event i've ever remembered
No comments:
Post a Comment