louis Fashion
Apr 21, 08:40 PM
You and Full of Win must be related. Or married. Or both.
No they both married their sisters.
No they both married their sisters.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 7, 03:16 AM
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the exterior, not the chipset.
I don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
Some people have recognised that the reference to G5 relates to the exterior design, not the chips inside.
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
As other people have recognised..... the reference to G5 is in relation to the exterior, not the chipset.
I don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
Some people have recognised that the reference to G5 relates to the exterior design, not the chips inside.
Krizoitz
Mar 19, 11:58 AM
Look, you don't have to call people names....
I just wanted to state that Apple should go on the Attack !! If it's a wombat then you should go and see Apple's situation outside of America.
In Australia (where Im from), the market is dead ! Most Apple Stores are large and if you ive in the Country - they don't exist. The rest of Asia is like that.
In Japan (where I live), alot of people have an Ipod but NOT a Macintosh...
Apple needs to push the market to get more...
I'm sorry that you felt insulted by the term, it wasn't meant to refer to you, just the petition idea.
I have read of the problems that Apple Australia is having os you may have a point there, but from all my contacts in Japan Apple seems to be doing spectacularly well there (and always has), the Ginza store opening is a prime-example.
Anyhow what you have to realize is that those of us in the U.S. have had to continously put up with this idea that Apple is dying in the media for a long time now, so we tend to be annoyed easier when things like this happens. At least for us, in Apple's main market it is doing great, so we really see no need to "save" Apple. Maybe a Save Apple Australia petition would help more, it sounds like the pricing is outta control.
I just wanted to state that Apple should go on the Attack !! If it's a wombat then you should go and see Apple's situation outside of America.
In Australia (where Im from), the market is dead ! Most Apple Stores are large and if you ive in the Country - they don't exist. The rest of Asia is like that.
In Japan (where I live), alot of people have an Ipod but NOT a Macintosh...
Apple needs to push the market to get more...
I'm sorry that you felt insulted by the term, it wasn't meant to refer to you, just the petition idea.
I have read of the problems that Apple Australia is having os you may have a point there, but from all my contacts in Japan Apple seems to be doing spectacularly well there (and always has), the Ginza store opening is a prime-example.
Anyhow what you have to realize is that those of us in the U.S. have had to continously put up with this idea that Apple is dying in the media for a long time now, so we tend to be annoyed easier when things like this happens. At least for us, in Apple's main market it is doing great, so we really see no need to "save" Apple. Maybe a Save Apple Australia petition would help more, it sounds like the pricing is outta control.
63dot
Nov 24, 07:40 PM
Matix jeans, stretch fit.
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 01:57 PM
Add
Windows,
Words
besides others !!
Guys, every trademark is made up of generic words. That's not what people mean when they say App Store is generic. What they actually mean is it is descriptive.
Let's say I open a shoe store. 2 Trademarks :
1- Shoe Box
Both very generic words, same as everyone who argues "Windows! Amazon! Word! it's all generic!" say. However, I'm not trademarking an actual box that contains shoes. I'm trademarking a name for a store. The shoes don't even have to come in boxes.
2- Shoe Store
This one is descriptive. I'm opening a shoe store, I'm deciding to call it Shoe Store. So now, Yellow can't say "Yellow, the best shoe store around!" because that infringes on my mark. That's what people take exception with here. The mark seems descriptive and thus shouldn't be trademarkable. Apple themselves often refer to it in this descriptive nature in their financials and keynotes.
Windows,
Words
besides others !!
Guys, every trademark is made up of generic words. That's not what people mean when they say App Store is generic. What they actually mean is it is descriptive.
Let's say I open a shoe store. 2 Trademarks :
1- Shoe Box
Both very generic words, same as everyone who argues "Windows! Amazon! Word! it's all generic!" say. However, I'm not trademarking an actual box that contains shoes. I'm trademarking a name for a store. The shoes don't even have to come in boxes.
2- Shoe Store
This one is descriptive. I'm opening a shoe store, I'm deciding to call it Shoe Store. So now, Yellow can't say "Yellow, the best shoe store around!" because that infringes on my mark. That's what people take exception with here. The mark seems descriptive and thus shouldn't be trademarkable. Apple themselves often refer to it in this descriptive nature in their financials and keynotes.
chutch15
Sep 12, 09:43 PM
The photos on the BestBuy and Belkin websites are pretty good as far as fit and shine, but they do show the color as way too light and much too purpley. It's much darker and much closer to midnight blue than violet. It certain light there is a very slight violet hue, but it's a very cool deep color.
Here is the best I can do for a photo right now...
http://ghostland.com/nightsky.jpg
Here is the best I can do for a photo right now...
http://ghostland.com/nightsky.jpg
SeattleMoose
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
please!!!!:rolleyes:
fun173
Jan 28, 10:00 PM
^^ It may be an illusion but are your rear tires smaller than the front ones? Anyways, you have an awesome car. Looks very nice.
Naimfan
Mar 19, 05:44 PM
Should it be removed? As strongly as I am against discrimination based on orientation, no, it should not.
I believe we should provide every opportunity to people to show how foolish and narrow-minded they are, and that app certainly seems to give people that opportunity.
I believe we should provide every opportunity to people to show how foolish and narrow-minded they are, and that app certainly seems to give people that opportunity.
j-hov
Jan 10, 09:17 AM
My Car:
2007 Honda Civic Si w/ 09+ front end conversion
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/photo.jpg
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/IMG_2477.jpg
^Pics taken w/ My iPhone 4 HDR mode
2007 Honda Civic Si w/ 09+ front end conversion
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/photo.jpg
http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx212/HellaFreshTampa/8thCivic/IMG_2477.jpg
^Pics taken w/ My iPhone 4 HDR mode
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 09:08 AM
This is the lowest end machine Apple makes. Let's be realistic. This is a reasonable update for the base model. And it's probably being done in advance of a Core 2 Duo update to the iMac.
Yonah doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Merom is pin-compatible and costs exactly the same amount. Besides, it would be a PR boost for Apple to have the entire lineup 64-bit and "Leopard ready". The Mac Mini is going to use the 5000 series Meroms and the iMac is going to use the 7000s.
Yonah doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Merom is pin-compatible and costs exactly the same amount. Besides, it would be a PR boost for Apple to have the entire lineup 64-bit and "Leopard ready". The Mac Mini is going to use the 5000 series Meroms and the iMac is going to use the 7000s.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 05:56 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
zedsdead
Jan 13, 04:03 PM
Apple will NOT do that, however, remember the collapsing port patent filed by Apple?
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
Apple is supposed to be building an Ultra-Portable. Ethernet takes up space. I seriously doubt it will be in the Macbook Air or whatever apple decides to call it. Wifi will be enough. This laptop is not ment to be a main computer.
Eraserhead
Jul 18, 06:35 AM
I dunno, I could work if they streamed it. Even if they did it so you waited 15 minutes so there was loads of streamed data on your computer first (so no awful pauses) I can see myself using it a lot for even �2. You could go round with a laptop (or an iPod with WiFi ;) ) and plug it into a TV and watch a film on it, it would be good.
jaw04005
May 2, 10:17 PM
Now, if Microsoft and Adobe would just get on board with this for their Mac applications. Office and Creative Suite spew crap everywhere. :rolleyes:
Kenso
Mar 22, 03:48 PM
They should make brief questions to Steve Jobs the same way he answers:
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my iPhone
:D
MacsRgr8
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
I am hoping for the full 1920 x 1080 rez movies!
Best would be 3 sizes available to choose from:
%IMG_DESC_19%
Best would be 3 sizes available to choose from:
starflyer
Apr 12, 08:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I used to think just like you until I sat down and used it. You should give it a try. It is a very powerful editor.
I used to think just like you until I sat down and used it. You should give it a try. It is a very powerful editor.
islanders
Dec 27, 09:35 PM
I�m waiting on buying a HD DVD or BlueRay until the price comes down, so I could see iTV offering a HD alternative, and filling that niche.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Donnacha
Nov 27, 05:05 PM
*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
kadajawi
Sep 6, 10:54 AM
Please explain to me who would buy a mini and why?
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?
Just ordered mine :) The line up is nice because the lower end is pretty decent already with the Core Duo.
Why would I prefer the Mini... because a decent 19" widescreen is very cheap, and bigger, and I have a few monitors (ok, CRT, but what the heck...). Because people might have one of the HDTV LCDs or Plasmas and they want to use it in the living room (add a tv tuner and you have a nice HTPC).
You can always add an external DVD writer and HDD (which would be faster too).
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?
Just ordered mine :) The line up is nice because the lower end is pretty decent already with the Core Duo.
Why would I prefer the Mini... because a decent 19" widescreen is very cheap, and bigger, and I have a few monitors (ok, CRT, but what the heck...). Because people might have one of the HDTV LCDs or Plasmas and they want to use it in the living room (add a tv tuner and you have a nice HTPC).
You can always add an external DVD writer and HDD (which would be faster too).
jafd
Mar 24, 05:44 AM
The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
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.
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.
Tomorrow
Mar 1, 02:36 PM
I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
Diesel is no less refined than gasoline - it's a product of the exact same refinement process.
Different carbon chains are gently boiled off by gradually raising the temperature of the crude. The smaller molecules are the first to burn off. Typically carbon chains 5-8 (pentane through octane) are sold as "gasoline." The next four or so are sold as "kerosene," or jet fuel. After that comes what we call "diesel." Each is as pure as the others, but diesel is made of larger, more complex carbon chains.
I can see both sides of the diesel engine argument. It's hard to deny that diesel engines are, other things being equal, more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines. The higher compression ratio equals greater power output per gallon and greater torque. In the larger sizes that we usually see in trucks, they seem to last longer than gasoline engines, too. But the damn things are noisy, and the exhaust smells really bad.
Diesel is no less refined than gasoline - it's a product of the exact same refinement process.
Different carbon chains are gently boiled off by gradually raising the temperature of the crude. The smaller molecules are the first to burn off. Typically carbon chains 5-8 (pentane through octane) are sold as "gasoline." The next four or so are sold as "kerosene," or jet fuel. After that comes what we call "diesel." Each is as pure as the others, but diesel is made of larger, more complex carbon chains.
I can see both sides of the diesel engine argument. It's hard to deny that diesel engines are, other things being equal, more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines. The higher compression ratio equals greater power output per gallon and greater torque. In the larger sizes that we usually see in trucks, they seem to last longer than gasoline engines, too. But the damn things are noisy, and the exhaust smells really bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment