antmarobel
Apr 1, 05:46 PM
Last version of Little Snitch, which was working fine on Preview 1 is no longer working.
dekator
Aug 25, 04:42 AM
I do hope they'll ship new MacBooks in September. I've been holding off a purchase for that very reason. Anyway, new portables should ship this year... before the German government raises the VAT... :eek:
viggin
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
strabes
Mar 22, 05:35 PM
a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc.
Your computer can do this right now with AirPlay.
Your computer can do this right now with AirPlay.
lilo777
Apr 3, 12:13 AM
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
xi mezmerize ix
Feb 23, 05:43 AM
I gave up on running Handbrake on my MacBook of the same vintage, but only because kept loosing RAM and making it difficult to work. I started running Handbrake on the Mid 2007 Mac Mini instead.
Haven't tried on the 2010 MBP that I just got. Might have to do that and see what we get...
Handbrake runs fine on my 2010 MBP.
Haven't tried on the 2010 MBP that I just got. Might have to do that and see what we get...
Handbrake runs fine on my 2010 MBP.
mrmicp
Apr 3, 04:48 AM
The advert speaks volumes to me, I love it..... a select few won't, but it's just not possible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
MacRumors
Apr 19, 10:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/imac-supplies-becoming-constrained-ahead-of-potential-refresh/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/19/115238-2010_imacs_front_back.jpg
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/19/115238-2010_imacs_front_back.jpg
dkoralek
Oct 23, 11:33 PM
The current Napa64 platform (that is, Napa with Merom as the CPU) does support 64-bit instructions. It can't address more than 4 GiB of physical memory, but it can run the faster 64-bit instructions.
Here's the download page for the x64 drivers for Dell's Latitude D620 with Core 2 Duo:
http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/devices.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&SystemID=LATITUDE%20D620&os=WXPX&osl=EN#
Interestingly, though, the iMac (with c2d) appartently does not include the Napa64 platform (or rather the chipset that belongs in Napa64). Anyone know if it can deal with 64-bit isntructions?
cheers.
Here's the download page for the x64 drivers for Dell's Latitude D620 with Core 2 Duo:
http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/devices.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&SystemID=LATITUDE%20D620&os=WXPX&osl=EN#
Interestingly, though, the iMac (with c2d) appartently does not include the Napa64 platform (or rather the chipset that belongs in Napa64). Anyone know if it can deal with 64-bit isntructions?
cheers.
kidwithdimples
Feb 20, 03:39 PM
Who's the gal? ;)
She looks like Mila Kunis.
She looks like Mila Kunis.
macfan881
Jul 18, 03:37 PM
there r plenty movies i watch more than once i would rather buy a movie though from itunes rather than rent as i have netflix already and it would be a better fit i think steve went to rental if its true cause of the price diffrence he wants 9.99 for a movie the studios want atleast 19.99 so thats why i think this would be true even if they both comprimise and be 12-14 and maybe through some exclusive content bonus featurs i would still buy movies for itunes espiecaily once i get my ipod video
RebootD
Apr 3, 01:34 AM
I love the visual direction of the ad, letting the screen shine as the light source, zooming in on the intricacies of multi-touch but then I want to punch through a wall when I hear 'magical'.
jdawgnoonan
Mar 25, 05:05 PM
That is awesome and amazing, but it would be much more so without the cable. My experience is that the cable connection to all iDevices get pretty touchy (due to the cable I believe, not the actual iDevice). Make that work with the iPhone or iPod touch acting as a controller and it would be sweeter, or better yet release a controller for games on the iPad that is comfortable and costs less than 50 bucks.
lordonuthin
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
haha, thanks. yeah i think i moved into 3rd yesterday or the day before. yeah looking forward to 3 digits. i just gotta get this other system up and running. i really need to rearrange my gpus again, but just haven't had the time
According to the official stats (http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=3446&username=twoodcc) you already are at 3 digits for overall rank, congrats!
According to the official stats (http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=3446&username=twoodcc) you already are at 3 digits for overall rank, congrats!
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:31 PM
Ws there any mention of iTV's HD capabilities?
Its outputs are HDMI and component video. It is designed for HD content.
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
Its outputs are HDMI and component video. It is designed for HD content.
I learned to drive on a '79 RX-7. Brilliant automobile.
SactoGuy18
Mar 5, 07:55 AM
Dear god I hope that Golf GTD shows up stateside.
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
I believe I will own one, should it happen.
That's purty. :)
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
jnc
Apr 3, 06:07 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
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?
banjomamo
Jul 14, 01:26 AM
I think it will be at least 12 more months before bluray shows up in an Apple machine - at least as a standard. The only real hint I have seen is that they already let you author the HD-DVD spec video in DVD SP. Maybe because the Bluray specs werent done in time for that release though.
hyperpasta
Jul 18, 01:56 PM
Over at AI one user made a good point about how WWDC in '04 Steve spent quite a bit of time talking about iPod and iTMS - user guessimates around 25%. So I guess that kinda beats down the argument that WWDC has always been "Mac" only...
He did, but he didn't show a single new product. He simply recapped the announcements made in the weeks before: iPod+BMW and AirPort Express.
He did, but he didn't show a single new product. He simply recapped the announcements made in the weeks before: iPod+BMW and AirPort Express.
Apple OC
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
It's just the last time I remember a UN action it was 98% US in Iraq.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19�May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19�May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.
Mulyahnto
Jul 19, 03:55 PM
I think iPod and Mac sales volume was towards the high end of the range of analysts' predictions. iPod and Mac sales volume is a more important indicator than revenue, I think.
PodPacker
Oct 23, 11:50 AM
Updates are expected very soon boys and ghouls! My dealer at a Mac Online Store just sent me an e-mail announcing a $100+ price drop on MacBook Pro laptops.
BJonson
Apr 26, 01:02 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
No comments:
Post a Comment