ctsport1234
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is awsome news! :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
If Apple does make a 23'' imac, I will definately be getting one! (albeit when Leopard is released) :D
imac_japan
Mar 27, 06:45 AM
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
Sorry but I disagree - what you say here is just something you made up !!!! Safari is a good browser and Apple only made it cause MS pulled IE. Think about it. Apple may have money but it needs to do something else to kick start growth....The Ipod doesn't have long to go...Itunes will still do well but it doesn't give Apple enough money !
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
Sorry but I disagree - what you say here is just something you made up !!!! Safari is a good browser and Apple only made it cause MS pulled IE. Think about it. Apple may have money but it needs to do something else to kick start growth....The Ipod doesn't have long to go...Itunes will still do well but it doesn't give Apple enough money !
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
Popeye206
May 2, 05:37 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
LOL! Yeah... and I remember crashing faster than you click your mouse on those systems. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a mess. But of course... most things were back then. how far we've come.
someone28624
Mar 22, 04:18 PM
Not that I'd want this, BUT why doesn't Apple make the iPod Classic a multi-touch device? The Mac proves that you don't need to have flash memory in order for multi-touch to work. Is the HDD in the Classic too slow or unresponsive to work with iOS? The could call it the iPod Touch Classic or something. Then you could have the best of both worlds, large capacity and a touch screen. If they did that, though, there's no way I'd buy an iPod Touch (not that I have a desire for one as I've go the iPhone4).
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
fafner
Mar 26, 03:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
The Apple TV 3 Will have this power, and then pairing up with anoter iOS device would be nice. All controls on the touch/iPad/phone pushing the graphics from the apple TV.
And you players are you looking at your mice when moving it around?
I am looking at the cursor...
Have you seen a modern fighter jet cocpit, less and less buttons and more and more displays...
The Apple TV 3 Will have this power, and then pairing up with anoter iOS device would be nice. All controls on the touch/iPad/phone pushing the graphics from the apple TV.
And you players are you looking at your mice when moving it around?
I am looking at the cursor...
Have you seen a modern fighter jet cocpit, less and less buttons and more and more displays...
emotion
Aug 16, 07:36 AM
Wonder if the wireless ipod wont be the iphone.
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
Full of Win
Apr 19, 10:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
One step closer to a MBA refresh.
jwp1964
Sep 7, 09:09 AM
A good idea, just poorly executed.
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
Actually makes more sense than the system we have now.
Just where would you prefer to live? Make a choice from the list below:
USA, England, Austalia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea (South) most other EU members OR
China, Cuba, Russia, North Korea.
You've got to be kidding me, unless you actually believe we should all be equally miserable.:p
Conner36
Mar 25, 04:33 PM
I will be happy when you dont have to use the dongle but can use an AppleTV to do the processing and have the iphone/ipad/ipodtouch useable as a controller.
selena-gomez
Bieber et Selena Gomez en
Actress Selena Gomez is the
selena gomez hairstyle
Selena
Kate Moss, Selena Gomez
Actress/singer Selena Gomez is
Fergie, Selena Gomez ( you are
oh selena,
Selena Gomez amp; the Scene.
pimjai
Sep 18, 03:36 AM
are there any sleeves yet?
yg17
Mar 19, 11:16 PM
For the sake of consistency with the App Store and its censorship policies, it should be removed for containing offensive, disgusting content.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
I don't think it should be removed, and I don't think many other apps that have been removed should be removed. I just think Apple should censor consistently or not censor at all.
thisisahughes
Apr 3, 06:19 AM
I like the black theme A LOT more than the all white themes. I hope to see more like this in the future.
Tronic
Mar 25, 08:26 PM
What I would like to see is 1080p out via wifi to apple TV, thus negating the need for dock connector out as seen in the video. Then companies will start developing in the opposite direction. IE apps optimized to take advantage of the apple TVs power while using the ipad/iphone/itouch as remotes/controllers.
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. ;)
moondog190
Feb 24, 01:19 PM
http://flic.kr/p/9kHqGM
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. :apple: 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.:apple::apple::apple:
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. :apple: 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.:apple::apple::apple:
Eidorian
Aug 25, 10:26 AM
I can.Only thing holding back better GPU in mini and MacBooks is Intel. Apple needs to stick with IG for cost reasons. Just wating for Intel to start shipping better GPU so they can improve that ASAP. I'm with you guys. Waiting for that to improve as well. But may happen with this refresh. Don't know the IG roadmap so well. Read here the 965 set is delayed until early 2007.
Can anyone here confirm where we're at and going how soon on the Intel Integrated GPU front?We're still going with the GMA950 on the mobile front. The X3000 (965) has made its debut on the desktop platform with Conroe. Still, driver issues and low chipset supply keep it from the mass market. We're not going to see a MOBILE X3000 (965) until Santa Rosa next year. Hopefully Apple can make some good drivers for OS X and the X3000. I don't know anything beyond the 965 in the integrated graphics front.
Can anyone here confirm where we're at and going how soon on the Intel Integrated GPU front?We're still going with the GMA950 on the mobile front. The X3000 (965) has made its debut on the desktop platform with Conroe. Still, driver issues and low chipset supply keep it from the mass market. We're not going to see a MOBILE X3000 (965) until Santa Rosa next year. Hopefully Apple can make some good drivers for OS X and the X3000. I don't know anything beyond the 965 in the integrated graphics front.
Digital Dude
Mar 24, 02:03 PM
Ok, the sorta-kinda support of the cards listed means what? I have a 2009 MP but I'm not sure anyone knows the power supply rating. Likewise, this whole 'hakintosh' vernacular is confusing and suggest the cards are not really plug n' play out of the box.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 10:46 AM
Not just wrong but probably illegal in several countries.
My own country belgium for example its illegal to store such data without consent of the person itself.
No iPhones in Belgium?
My own country belgium for example its illegal to store such data without consent of the person itself.
No iPhones in Belgium?
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:
network23
Jul 19, 04:46 PM
I fully believe the lower desktop numbers are due to people waiting for the Intel-based desktops. The wonderful thing about Macs are that they aren't always in need of updating, so it's not a problem to wait until they are released.
Expect a huge increase in desktop sales the next quarter or two (if indeed the Mac Pro with Intel line appears next month).
Expect a huge increase in desktop sales the next quarter or two (if indeed the Mac Pro with Intel line appears next month).
daysleeper
Jul 18, 09:35 AM
There are only a handful of movies that I would ever want to own, and these are films that I feel strongly about and like to loan out to people all the time. I have never understood people who build a personal movie library-- it is so expensive, and who are these people who watch these things over and over again?
If rentals are cheap, like 2-3 dollars, gimme gimme gimme. It'll save gas money to a traditional video store, and keep me from having to strategize about netflix.
Of course, it would be best to have an option to buy too, but I guess we can't have everything.
If rentals are cheap, like 2-3 dollars, gimme gimme gimme. It'll save gas money to a traditional video store, and keep me from having to strategize about netflix.
Of course, it would be best to have an option to buy too, but I guess we can't have everything.
rmwebs
Mar 22, 04:31 PM
Disk space aside, there's nothing wrong with the current iPod Classic. It doesnt need bluetooth, microphones, cameras, etc - the hint is in the name...CLASSIC.
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
jettredmont
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
Fine. You all go and apply to work at a post house and put "iMovie" on your resume. See how long it takes for them to laugh you out the door.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Ummm ... if you are wanting to build your pro resume, obviously you wouldn't put a consumer app on it. I'm a software engineer, and I wouldn't put Automator as a skill on my resume either.
iMovie is a great consumer video editing app, far more capable than iMovie HD ever was, and still much easier for "everyday" people to understand. No, it's not Final Cut. That's why Apple makes Final Cut Pro.
I haven't really used iMovie since HD, so to be honest I don't really care what they do to it. It's "Super quick to capture and edit DV" time has come and gone.
Ummm ... if you are wanting to build your pro resume, obviously you wouldn't put a consumer app on it. I'm a software engineer, and I wouldn't put Automator as a skill on my resume either.
iMovie is a great consumer video editing app, far more capable than iMovie HD ever was, and still much easier for "everyday" people to understand. No, it's not Final Cut. That's why Apple makes Final Cut Pro.
RITZFit
Apr 16, 06:44 PM
I can drive a 18 wheeler but I haven't tried a manual car or pickup yet. I think its different. LOL
haha, if you can master than then I'm sure any other car will be simple
haha, if you can master than then I'm sure any other car will be simple
No comments:
Post a Comment