MattSepeta
May 2, 05:42 PM
Another iOS feature implemented in a desktop OS.
Fan-frickin-tastic :(
Fan-frickin-tastic :(
cmaier
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
this commercial makes ipad seemed like it's only for kids.
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
jxyama
Apr 16, 08:22 AM
Very interesting point but I want Apple's share to grow ! The whole point of this thread is to get Apple into every home - right now, its being done by the Ipod but sales can't continue this good forever so they must push the Macintosh into more homes and business.
if you want apple in every home, why don't you buy Macs and give them away? (sarcasm)
the whole point of this thread is NOT to get apple into every home. you started the thread claiming apple is in need of help. apple does not need help, as others have posted many, many times.
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone.
lexus is nice. bmw is nice. are you going to petition that they should offer lower priced version of their cars so everyone could have one? a three story house with huge lawn and furnished basement is nice. are you going to petition morgage companies so that everyone could have a multi-million dollar morgages to get those houses and wreck their business because 99% of them will default?
if you want apple in every home, why don't you buy Macs and give them away? (sarcasm)
the whole point of this thread is NOT to get apple into every home. you started the thread claiming apple is in need of help. apple does not need help, as others have posted many, many times.
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone.
lexus is nice. bmw is nice. are you going to petition that they should offer lower priced version of their cars so everyone could have one? a three story house with huge lawn and furnished basement is nice. are you going to petition morgage companies so that everyone could have a multi-million dollar morgages to get those houses and wreck their business because 99% of them will default?
cube
Mar 24, 03:43 PM
Well then why the hell are you even chanting from the rooftops about how great Fusion is *supposedly* going to be when you KNOW that the chances of Apple using it are slim to none? It's like a kid nagging his parents for the ice cream that has a fancier logo and packaging when they know their parents aren't going to buy it for them because in reality it's all the same and will most likely taste worse then what they bought previously despite what their ads say.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
Changen
Feb 23, 03:17 PM
nothing special but heres my setups bedroom and office
apb3
Aug 18, 12:49 AM
Add to this the fact that the iPod's storage capacity has remain unchanged for, perhaps, the longest time in iPod history. With video capability, 60GB just isn't that big anymore. Hasn't Seagate had an 80GB 1.8" drive available for several months?
We need to have a new, improved, (and thinner?) form factor, with larger capacity, at the current price point.
But.... I never keep ALL the vids i've downloaded on the iPod. Do you personally need to? or can you do as I do and just uncheck the boxes in the iTunes lib (or use the manual transfer method) for videos you don't want at that time/for that trip?
I usually put enough to last me a trip and a few extra - my oldest son insists on his Clone Wars Vols. 1 and 2 and some Mystic Force Rangers, my youngest, Baby Einstein and some ripped kids shows off of Tivo - not Tivo supported yet on mac but my wife's PC laptop from her lab gets the shows transferred and I muck about with it - COME ON Tivo, get with it!!!! - and I insist on my Streets videos and presentations in Keynote.
On that point, someone mentioned wireless usefullnes in the presentation arena but it is quite easy to just use the iPod as an HD and run it from there or use a dock w/ remote, but I do appreciate/like that wireless idea for this app nonetheless :cool: ; maybe as an add-on like an FM transmitter or iTalk with its own power supply/easily swapped AA, AAA, independently rechargeable or whatever batteries so as to avoid my issues with wireless killing iPod play time capacity during untetherd use?
Not as elegant or "SEXY-WOW!," as mobile OS X or whatever but I've sold quite a few old-time PC guys on the merits of apple by showing them the difference between the real Keynote presentation straight off a mac laptop and the exported - more or less; less mostly - PPT show run from the iPod through their windows box in the briefing area.
The iPod mobile Firefox and the ability to do that with any software really (given the effort and skill) also had them excited. Security, uniforminity and transportability of essential info/prefs/forms data/ pushing info out to such devices in the hands of squad leaders and even the regular soldier/security contractor a la an ITMS type interface are a big concern for us which this type of development provides to a degree.
And the iPod or a mac laptop coupled with Keynote and it's ease of use, clarity and attention grab during the few briefings I've handled has already convinced a few of my superiors to 1) pay for a new mac laptop for me asap and 2) requisition some more on a test basis to work out just how much more secure they are than leaky windows boxes and, I extrapolate, the Zaney or whatever MS will call their iPod Killer if it makes it to market. (comments, ideas, proof-of-concept walk-throughs would be helpful in my crusade in this area. Maybe "Crusade," is a poor choice of words....:rolleyes:
The rest of my family's personal vids, video-grams, "miss you" videos, etc I keep archived in iTunes on one drive location shared by all computers authorized to do so - or backed up somewhere if you'd rather do it that way - but with drive storage getting even more affordable by the minute and the soon to be pervasiveness of Network Drives without the need to log into a "server" as such, I've no issue keeping them (unchecked so they don't sync to the iPod next time) in my regular library shared between all my computers (when I'm at home).
My wife has no issue keeping up with this way of doing things while I'm away and she's not really as computer savvy as I :p and includes a work PC :mad: in the mix. We just point all the home machines to one of our big external drives dedicated to music and video - or you could use an alias on each machine that does the same thing I suppose. She's been able to troubleshoot that herself with minimal input from me after the initial walk-through/discussion of the theory behind it. Once I cycle back to the states and spend some cash we will be able to afford - and I hope I will be able to convince my wife of the necessity of getting netdrives; it'd be convenient for her work from lab - yeah that's it... and we're going to soon need to have separate HDs for music and video with the relevant appps pointed accordingly to the right location. Two, three clicks in the apps pref panel. Easy as making MREs.
This also does away with the need to have shared music libs on the same subnet, duplicating libraries on each machine and thus wasting space, the headaches of making sure we all have the same access to the same libraries or doing backflips/using unsupported hacks to make sure everyone has the latest download purchased on "Machine X" available for all other authorized computers - all you need do is access the drive(s) wherein resides the "real" library you need for that particular app.
That said, being rather far from home at the minute I have been reduced to having a real (read: extra) copy of everything on my laptop here and it's a real pain in the ass. Especially when one of us buys a new track or video and I need to get it FTPd from her to me, me to her or sent some other way back and forth so we all have an actual copy, but this is only temporary one way or the other...:eek: It was just too snail slow doing it the aforementioned way from here.
Depending on quality offered with the alleged movie service, however, a bump to 80Gig wouldn't be bad but I think I could make do with my 60gig with some planning ahead as noted above.
I think we all agree on the need for bigger screen real estate but when you start adding the bigger/better res screen, an HD bump of at least 20gig high end, the no-touch thingy, the wireless everyone but I seems to find useful/feasible, etc... into the price factor, the iPod looses some of it's appeal to the masses and becomes the must-have-tech-geek-mac-fan gadget my gen 1 was way back when.... Oh you should have heard my wife then. And do you still remember being in public with one - the only one? :)
Geeky, but we (or, more precisely, Apple) were right.
Also, the "smaller" form factor you mention would, I think make battery life even less satisfactory for long haul trips w/out the ability to recharge often or at all. Add the wireless some are clamoring for and you might get 30 minutes if you're lucky. Hell, the latest Streets exclusive video is longer than Thriller at 20 minutes!
Tangentially, has anyone else seen the news stories (mostly since the Dell battery issue) about fuel cells or some other sort of power source for these devices that seem to be more and more dangerous from a heat standpoint?
Anyone with some technical background in that area with some insight on cost, size, cell life, feasability for an iPod like device, etc??? Would that make sense in a next gen iPod (and/or laptops, tablets (come on apple! I still love my Newton!!), an iPhone/vid chatter/presentation device thing, etc...??) maybe that's a partial solution to some of my and others' concerns with all this wireless talk and hoped-for new features.
We need to have a new, improved, (and thinner?) form factor, with larger capacity, at the current price point.
But.... I never keep ALL the vids i've downloaded on the iPod. Do you personally need to? or can you do as I do and just uncheck the boxes in the iTunes lib (or use the manual transfer method) for videos you don't want at that time/for that trip?
I usually put enough to last me a trip and a few extra - my oldest son insists on his Clone Wars Vols. 1 and 2 and some Mystic Force Rangers, my youngest, Baby Einstein and some ripped kids shows off of Tivo - not Tivo supported yet on mac but my wife's PC laptop from her lab gets the shows transferred and I muck about with it - COME ON Tivo, get with it!!!! - and I insist on my Streets videos and presentations in Keynote.
On that point, someone mentioned wireless usefullnes in the presentation arena but it is quite easy to just use the iPod as an HD and run it from there or use a dock w/ remote, but I do appreciate/like that wireless idea for this app nonetheless :cool: ; maybe as an add-on like an FM transmitter or iTalk with its own power supply/easily swapped AA, AAA, independently rechargeable or whatever batteries so as to avoid my issues with wireless killing iPod play time capacity during untetherd use?
Not as elegant or "SEXY-WOW!," as mobile OS X or whatever but I've sold quite a few old-time PC guys on the merits of apple by showing them the difference between the real Keynote presentation straight off a mac laptop and the exported - more or less; less mostly - PPT show run from the iPod through their windows box in the briefing area.
The iPod mobile Firefox and the ability to do that with any software really (given the effort and skill) also had them excited. Security, uniforminity and transportability of essential info/prefs/forms data/ pushing info out to such devices in the hands of squad leaders and even the regular soldier/security contractor a la an ITMS type interface are a big concern for us which this type of development provides to a degree.
And the iPod or a mac laptop coupled with Keynote and it's ease of use, clarity and attention grab during the few briefings I've handled has already convinced a few of my superiors to 1) pay for a new mac laptop for me asap and 2) requisition some more on a test basis to work out just how much more secure they are than leaky windows boxes and, I extrapolate, the Zaney or whatever MS will call their iPod Killer if it makes it to market. (comments, ideas, proof-of-concept walk-throughs would be helpful in my crusade in this area. Maybe "Crusade," is a poor choice of words....:rolleyes:
The rest of my family's personal vids, video-grams, "miss you" videos, etc I keep archived in iTunes on one drive location shared by all computers authorized to do so - or backed up somewhere if you'd rather do it that way - but with drive storage getting even more affordable by the minute and the soon to be pervasiveness of Network Drives without the need to log into a "server" as such, I've no issue keeping them (unchecked so they don't sync to the iPod next time) in my regular library shared between all my computers (when I'm at home).
My wife has no issue keeping up with this way of doing things while I'm away and she's not really as computer savvy as I :p and includes a work PC :mad: in the mix. We just point all the home machines to one of our big external drives dedicated to music and video - or you could use an alias on each machine that does the same thing I suppose. She's been able to troubleshoot that herself with minimal input from me after the initial walk-through/discussion of the theory behind it. Once I cycle back to the states and spend some cash we will be able to afford - and I hope I will be able to convince my wife of the necessity of getting netdrives; it'd be convenient for her work from lab - yeah that's it... and we're going to soon need to have separate HDs for music and video with the relevant appps pointed accordingly to the right location. Two, three clicks in the apps pref panel. Easy as making MREs.
This also does away with the need to have shared music libs on the same subnet, duplicating libraries on each machine and thus wasting space, the headaches of making sure we all have the same access to the same libraries or doing backflips/using unsupported hacks to make sure everyone has the latest download purchased on "Machine X" available for all other authorized computers - all you need do is access the drive(s) wherein resides the "real" library you need for that particular app.
That said, being rather far from home at the minute I have been reduced to having a real (read: extra) copy of everything on my laptop here and it's a real pain in the ass. Especially when one of us buys a new track or video and I need to get it FTPd from her to me, me to her or sent some other way back and forth so we all have an actual copy, but this is only temporary one way or the other...:eek: It was just too snail slow doing it the aforementioned way from here.
Depending on quality offered with the alleged movie service, however, a bump to 80Gig wouldn't be bad but I think I could make do with my 60gig with some planning ahead as noted above.
I think we all agree on the need for bigger screen real estate but when you start adding the bigger/better res screen, an HD bump of at least 20gig high end, the no-touch thingy, the wireless everyone but I seems to find useful/feasible, etc... into the price factor, the iPod looses some of it's appeal to the masses and becomes the must-have-tech-geek-mac-fan gadget my gen 1 was way back when.... Oh you should have heard my wife then. And do you still remember being in public with one - the only one? :)
Geeky, but we (or, more precisely, Apple) were right.
Also, the "smaller" form factor you mention would, I think make battery life even less satisfactory for long haul trips w/out the ability to recharge often or at all. Add the wireless some are clamoring for and you might get 30 minutes if you're lucky. Hell, the latest Streets exclusive video is longer than Thriller at 20 minutes!
Tangentially, has anyone else seen the news stories (mostly since the Dell battery issue) about fuel cells or some other sort of power source for these devices that seem to be more and more dangerous from a heat standpoint?
Anyone with some technical background in that area with some insight on cost, size, cell life, feasability for an iPod like device, etc??? Would that make sense in a next gen iPod (and/or laptops, tablets (come on apple! I still love my Newton!!), an iPhone/vid chatter/presentation device thing, etc...??) maybe that's a partial solution to some of my and others' concerns with all this wireless talk and hoped-for new features.
Spoony
Apr 26, 02:23 PM
This debate made me think of this. Now that I've thought about it more this is actually really interesting. Reminds me of Kleenex, or Xerox. Name becomes famous with what it does and becomes generic. I know this is different but made me think of it.
Once trademarked generic words include:
zipper
laundromat
escalator
Asprin
Heroin
yo-yo
Thermos
etc... goes on and on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Once trademarked generic words include:
zipper
laundromat
escalator
Asprin
Heroin
yo-yo
Thermos
etc... goes on and on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
koobcamuk
Apr 2, 08:23 PM
Marketing geniuses :)
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Old Smuggler
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Or stream it to an apple TV and let it do all the work
that HDMI cable looks very cumbersome
Multimedia
Aug 25, 03:27 AM
I dont think they will go core 2 yet, the mini is entry level, they will rather upgrade the macbook and the imac first before they go for the core 2 in the mini. That sayd, why not keep the solo and lower the price (3 mini models maybe), for many the reason why they arent switching is because of price, and with a lot of people only doing light office/home stuff the solo is good enough.
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
Wait.... there is something else out there?? ;) :DThere are no single core Core 2 processors. That's why. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the bottom of the line. Cost Apple same they paid for Solo 1.5GHz Yonah.
Yeah I thought mini would go Core 2 last. But maybe Apple is getting such a huge shipment that they can go Core 2 across the board right away. I don't know. Hope Springs Eternal. :p
Anonymous Freak
Nov 28, 12:01 AM
Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June 2004
Correction: the 17" Apple Cinema Display was the oddball 5:4 ratio. 1280x1024 is *NOT* 4:3. 1280x960 is. CRTs are usually 4:3, and Apple's CRTs that support 1280 or higher use 1280x960 (such as the eMac.) LCDs that use 1280 use the the non-standard ratio of 1280x1024. Why? No clue. Some oddball decision a little over half a decade ago. But 1280x1024 became the standard for LCDs.
Correction: the 17" Apple Cinema Display was the oddball 5:4 ratio. 1280x1024 is *NOT* 4:3. 1280x960 is. CRTs are usually 4:3, and Apple's CRTs that support 1280 or higher use 1280x960 (such as the eMac.) LCDs that use 1280 use the the non-standard ratio of 1280x1024. Why? No clue. Some oddball decision a little over half a decade ago. But 1280x1024 became the standard for LCDs.
skeep5
Aug 26, 02:32 PM
Like this?
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
sparksinspace
Sep 6, 11:23 AM
just bought a core solo mac mini a week ago.. kind of weird I did the same when the iBooks were moved go G4 a while back, a couple of weeks earlier I had bought a G3 model..
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
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?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
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.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
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?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
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.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
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?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
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.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
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.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]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?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
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?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
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.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
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?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
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.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
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?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
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.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
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.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]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?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
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?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
Robot-Rock
May 2, 04:32 PM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
Ted Witcher
Mar 22, 05:38 PM
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
That's an Emmeline DAC? You're not using USB?
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
That's an Emmeline DAC? You're not using USB?
Multimedia
Aug 31, 11:05 AM
Er... The quad G5 isn't available new anymore, so it costs what it costs (there's nothing in the regular store to compare it to - the Mac Pro is NOT a one for one replacement)... IF this rumor is true, then the current lineup is just getting shuffled down with a new top end added, then they would have to drop refurb prices or it wouldn't make any sense.
Now if they just shuffle the CPU down (so the base mini still has a Combo drive and 60gb HDD, but gets a 1.66 Core Duo) they will STILL have to drop the refurb price... A new regular price Solo with SD and 80gb HDD is currently $699, which is the current Core Duo refurb price.
If they completely revamp the lineup then they may keep the same pricing, but seems highly unlikey as noone would buy them and keeping uneeded inventory on hand is bad business.I agree with you. But for some reason who ever is in charge of that page does not. Mac Pro is certainly a replacement for the Quad G5 and much faster for less money. $2799 for a G5 Quad is not a fair market price.$1999 would be more reasonable.
That's why I am trying to get someone to do benchmarks between the Quad G5 and the 2GHz Mac Pro. My hunch is the 2GHz Mac Pro is faster than the 2.5GHz Quad G5. And a 2GHz Mac Pro is $2124 plus RAM.
Now if they just shuffle the CPU down (so the base mini still has a Combo drive and 60gb HDD, but gets a 1.66 Core Duo) they will STILL have to drop the refurb price... A new regular price Solo with SD and 80gb HDD is currently $699, which is the current Core Duo refurb price.
If they completely revamp the lineup then they may keep the same pricing, but seems highly unlikey as noone would buy them and keeping uneeded inventory on hand is bad business.I agree with you. But for some reason who ever is in charge of that page does not. Mac Pro is certainly a replacement for the Quad G5 and much faster for less money. $2799 for a G5 Quad is not a fair market price.$1999 would be more reasonable.
That's why I am trying to get someone to do benchmarks between the Quad G5 and the 2GHz Mac Pro. My hunch is the 2GHz Mac Pro is faster than the 2.5GHz Quad G5. And a 2GHz Mac Pro is $2124 plus RAM.
Gem�tlichkeit
Nov 23, 02:16 PM
The Logitech v470 mouse :D
bwiissofly
Feb 28, 05:10 PM
benjayman2
I LOVE LOVE LOVEEEEE your room setup. I wish I had a larger room so I could do that.
I LOVE LOVE LOVEEEEE your room setup. I wish I had a larger room so I could do that.
diogowerner
Aug 7, 06:09 AM
I was thinking that. Maybe thats why the iPhone pix look more like a house phone instead of cell phone?
Hmmmm... ?
an iPhone "as a landline skype style wifi cordless phone to go with iChat" should have the display and the camera on the same side... right?
Hmmmm... ?
an iPhone "as a landline skype style wifi cordless phone to go with iChat" should have the display and the camera on the same side... right?
vanzskater272
Aug 18, 06:22 PM
I wish they would make wireless ipods soon. But I just dont think that it's gonna happen.
bilbo--baggins
Jul 15, 03:18 AM
I think it's important for OS X to support Blue Ray as soon as possible, and to me it would seem crazy to not at least offer it as a BTO option when the Mac Pro is launched. Maybe if it's going to be in the PS3 then then high volume purchases will make it cheap enough to put into at least the high end Mac Pros as standard. Looking at the current prices of �800 then obviously that's too expensive to put in as standard.
It seems everything gets integrated these days, for example DVD+RW and DVD-RW both still exist (even though + is more popular and cheaper) so I would assume that sooner or later there will be writers than can work with both HD-DVD and Blue Ray.
Although I really would benefit from Blue Ray discs NOW, I couldn't afford it at current prices. However, I would be very disappointed in Apple as a company if they didn't have it as an option. The top of the range model should be the flagship of the very best and latest technology. Some people will have the money and will be very let down if Apple doesn't deliver.
It seems everything gets integrated these days, for example DVD+RW and DVD-RW both still exist (even though + is more popular and cheaper) so I would assume that sooner or later there will be writers than can work with both HD-DVD and Blue Ray.
Although I really would benefit from Blue Ray discs NOW, I couldn't afford it at current prices. However, I would be very disappointed in Apple as a company if they didn't have it as an option. The top of the range model should be the flagship of the very best and latest technology. Some people will have the money and will be very let down if Apple doesn't deliver.
wizard
Mar 24, 01:50 PM
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)
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
And is not perfect by any means but then again Intel doesn't really deserve the credit they get. Just look at the SB GPU and the bugs in SB in general. Since on can get superior GPU performance from AMD, and that is critical for some users, why not go with an entire AMD system? Yes I know the CPU is a little behind what Intel offers but that isn't a problem in Apples low end systems. Let's face it the Mini has never had a bleeding edge processor.
This discussion gets even more interesting when you consider AMDs coming Fusion processors. If you are about to buy a system with an integrated SoC solution which would you rather have an AMD GPU or an Intel one? Yeah I realize that some people need the fastest CPUs they can get, but for many a fast GPU delivers a better experience.
On top of all of that AMD seems to have the same vision of the future where the GPU becomes a kore equal partner to the CPU on SoCs. AMD is all in with OpenCL support today and has future plans to make such code much lower in overhead. Right up Apples alley.
In any event I see a number of reasons for Apple to split sales between AMD and Intel. Long term a few AMD based machines from Apple is better for both Apple and the industry.
islanders
Dec 27, 11:20 PM
For $299 I will guess you would get a dvd, and a download streaming device for iTV. But if you need a mac mini then you would have two dvd players. I hope there is an upgrade for some computer functions such as websurfing and word processing.
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
No comments:
Post a Comment