cloudnine
Nov 27, 01:42 PM
This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays? :confused:
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
Because a 30" cinema display is too small? Because you want to consolidate your TV and computer displays? :confused:
cube
Mar 24, 02:10 PM
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74
benjayman2
Feb 28, 04:23 AM
My humble little corner. :o
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5093/5485238236_f43739028a_z.jpg
Are the flowers real? I'm trying to find some plant to go with our new room. Kind of break up all the inanimate objects in the room :p
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5093/5485238236_f43739028a_z.jpg
Are the flowers real? I'm trying to find some plant to go with our new room. Kind of break up all the inanimate objects in the room :p
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
This ad makes me want to buy one...
so magical!!!
so magical!!!
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?
zorinlynx
Mar 24, 02:29 PM
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
I've always found this obsession the industry has with "protected path" incredibly hilarious, because NO ONE in the piracy scene actually rips media from the video driver stream in any way, shape or form.
Ripping is typically done directly from the media; the actual h.264 or MPEG video is decrypted from the disc and saved without even "playing" it the traditional way. It's always been that way since the days of DVDs; no serious pirate back then ripped from component or S-video jacks either.
Why the media industry is so incredibly obsessed with protecting a path nobody actually rips from is beyond my understanding. It's like stationing an armed guard at your back door when all the robberies have happened through the front. In fact, I've never seen consumer equipment that can "record" a DVI stream.
I've always found this obsession the industry has with "protected path" incredibly hilarious, because NO ONE in the piracy scene actually rips media from the video driver stream in any way, shape or form.
Ripping is typically done directly from the media; the actual h.264 or MPEG video is decrypted from the disc and saved without even "playing" it the traditional way. It's always been that way since the days of DVDs; no serious pirate back then ripped from component or S-video jacks either.
Why the media industry is so incredibly obsessed with protecting a path nobody actually rips from is beyond my understanding. It's like stationing an armed guard at your back door when all the robberies have happened through the front. In fact, I've never seen consumer equipment that can "record" a DVI stream.
sminman
Jan 11, 06:10 PM
I don't see the benefit of a MacBook Slim.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
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
MightyQuinn
Feb 6, 04:38 AM
Rx-8
moondog190
Feb 25, 07:52 AM
272787
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
left to right:
20" Apple Cinema Display, 1st Gen. 16gb iPod Touch, Late 2008 MacBook Pro on top of Griffin iStand controlled by an Apple wireless keyboard and Magic mouse, 1TB Seagate external HDD, 32gb Ipad wifi only, 21" Samsung display, 2cd Gen. TV, Razer Lycosa keyboard and Razer Death Adder mouse which controls a Windows XP box i built for my job(under the desk). You can barly see it but there is also a Power PC Mac Mini on top of the Windows machince which acts as a FTP server.
tuna
Mar 23, 11:08 AM
Haven't manufacturers been producing 240-250GB 1.8" iPod sized hard drives for years? I though that was part of the speculation of Apple cutting off the iPod Classics: bigger and bigger hard drives had become available but Apple was no longer updating.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
twoodcc
Dec 2, 04:59 AM
Well, I won't get back the #7 spot from you ;) unless these 12 cores Gulftown Mac pros come out at MWSF...
wait, by MWSF you mean CES?
wait, by MWSF you mean CES?
Nishi100
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
Is address book the same; and can you post a screenshot, anyway?
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
foodle
Mar 25, 06:40 PM
An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
Doctor Q
Sep 1, 02:03 PM
How big and small an iMac would consumers actually want? 50"? 10"?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
Machead III
Sep 7, 12:33 PM
Funny, that's what I thought reading your original post.
Cearly "education" didn't serve you as you started the communism argument.
Please, enlghten me, off forum, so I may better understand.
Considering your locations (UK and France) I'm not surprised.
I'm not interested in talking to bigots.
Cearly "education" didn't serve you as you started the communism argument.
Please, enlghten me, off forum, so I may better understand.
Considering your locations (UK and France) I'm not surprised.
I'm not interested in talking to bigots.
twoodcc
Mar 6, 10:29 AM
this is the error i get. if you guys cant help at all ill make a new thread :)
not sure just off of that info. what system are you running it on? tell us what you did to get it going
I'm almost there! 50k left to go!
nice! keep it up!
not sure just off of that info. what system are you running it on? tell us what you did to get it going
I'm almost there! 50k left to go!
nice! keep it up!
Chundles
Aug 7, 01:30 AM
Where the heck are you? Australia?
Could be Western Australia, here in Sydney it will be 3am when the conference kicks off.
Could be:
AUSTRALIA (Western Australia- Perth)
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM (Bandar Seri Begawan)
CHINA (Beijing, Shanghai)
HONG KONG (China)
INDONESIA (central- Bali, Borneo, Celebes/Ujung Pandang)
MACAU (Macao)
MALAYSIA (Kuala Lumpur)
MONGOLIA (Ulaanbaatar dst)
PHILIPPINES (Manila)
RUSSIA (ZONE 7- Irkutsk dst, Ulan-Ude dst, Bratsk dst, Ust'-Ordynsky dst)
SINGAPORE (Singapore)
TAIWAN (Taipei)
Could be Western Australia, here in Sydney it will be 3am when the conference kicks off.
Could be:
AUSTRALIA (Western Australia- Perth)
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM (Bandar Seri Begawan)
CHINA (Beijing, Shanghai)
HONG KONG (China)
INDONESIA (central- Bali, Borneo, Celebes/Ujung Pandang)
MACAU (Macao)
MALAYSIA (Kuala Lumpur)
MONGOLIA (Ulaanbaatar dst)
PHILIPPINES (Manila)
RUSSIA (ZONE 7- Irkutsk dst, Ulan-Ude dst, Bratsk dst, Ust'-Ordynsky dst)
SINGAPORE (Singapore)
TAIWAN (Taipei)
manhattanboy
Sep 14, 08:39 PM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
That's the hottest avatar I've seen since the guy who had the moving butt picture of the jailbait girl. :D
That's the hottest avatar I've seen since the guy who had the moving butt picture of the jailbait girl. :D
petteri
Aug 17, 06:56 AM
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
That's exactly why they did it. The higher the "look angle" ,the fewer drop outs of the signal there are due to something (tall building) blocking the signal. It cut the cost of building repeaters in every nook and cranny of every urban area. Although now with the new portable unit they have been putting more of these up. An added benefit of the orbit is that those three people living in Northern Canada can get a signal!
I don't think Apple is concerned so much about not being able to sell a Sat ready iPod outside North America. It's more about how to integrate the Satellite service into a revenue stream for iTunes. If they can find a way to make cash with satellite radio, it will happen.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
That's exactly why they did it. The higher the "look angle" ,the fewer drop outs of the signal there are due to something (tall building) blocking the signal. It cut the cost of building repeaters in every nook and cranny of every urban area. Although now with the new portable unit they have been putting more of these up. An added benefit of the orbit is that those three people living in Northern Canada can get a signal!
I don't think Apple is concerned so much about not being able to sell a Sat ready iPod outside North America. It's more about how to integrate the Satellite service into a revenue stream for iTunes. If they can find a way to make cash with satellite radio, it will happen.
Eidorian
Aug 26, 11:00 AM
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there. (Woodcrest's TDP is 85W by the way...)
And look here (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html)
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there. (Woodcrest's TDP is 85W by the way...)
And look here (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html)
HarryKeogh
Apr 19, 10:57 AM
I heard a rumor that these will not have a retina display or BluRay. No, seriously. They won't. My source is never wrong.
EJR
Sep 22, 11:55 AM
It's just released and is cheaper by $6.00 for whatever reason
Retail Price: $19.99 X
Your Savings: $6.00
Your Price: $13.99 :eek:
http://www.myincipio.com/product/IPOD_TOUCH_IP-903/iPod-touch-4G-dermaSHOT-Silicone-Case---Goldenrod.html:
If you don't mind the yellow, that's a really good deal if you need a holdover case. Just keep in mind that later on this week Incipio will be releasing their feather case for 19.99, with the silicylic coming out sometime next week for five bucks more. Just a thought.
Retail Price: $19.99 X
Your Savings: $6.00
Your Price: $13.99 :eek:
http://www.myincipio.com/product/IPOD_TOUCH_IP-903/iPod-touch-4G-dermaSHOT-Silicone-Case---Goldenrod.html:
If you don't mind the yellow, that's a really good deal if you need a holdover case. Just keep in mind that later on this week Incipio will be releasing their feather case for 19.99, with the silicylic coming out sometime next week for five bucks more. Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment