crap freakboy
Jul 18, 04:03 AM
Until they at least come close to matching the model that Mac The Ripper, Toast and Blockbuster 3 dvd postal rental gives me, I'll have to decline the Studios kind offer regarding rental rather than ownership.;)
CRAZYBUBBA
Jan 12, 02:40 PM
thinking back how many people called the iPod, mac mini and macbook name stupid it's very likely already confirmed
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
I love the 'i' idea its like saying 'my' mymac=imac, etc
the macbook however is a name that pales in comparision to the powerbook.
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
I love the 'i' idea its like saying 'my' mymac=imac, etc
the macbook however is a name that pales in comparision to the powerbook.
Michaelgtrusa
May 3, 04:33 AM
A good uninstaller is need in OS 10. I'd like to know where and how much is installed.
lordonuthin
Apr 28, 07:02 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 14 million points!
Thanks.
Thanks.
Rocketman
Nov 29, 08:14 PM
amps would lead to another possible product
I know this is quite a lot to ask for a first foray into this market for Apple but I think they could do alot with AV hardware, with a little help from established high end companies this could be awesome.
Apple has/had an agreement with Mc Intosh, the audiophile company not to do that. I wonder if they have resolved that by buying the company or a fee?
This is a possible limitation.
Rocketman
I know this is quite a lot to ask for a first foray into this market for Apple but I think they could do alot with AV hardware, with a little help from established high end companies this could be awesome.
Apple has/had an agreement with Mc Intosh, the audiophile company not to do that. I wonder if they have resolved that by buying the company or a fee?
This is a possible limitation.
Rocketman
SeaFox
Dec 27, 10:02 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.
I'm waiting for one format or the other to win, and I don't have an HD set anyway.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
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�
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
That is if the price is about $500.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
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.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
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?
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
I'm waiting for one format or the other to win, and I don't have an HD set anyway.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
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�
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
That is if the price is about $500.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
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.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
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?
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
Blakeco123
Apr 12, 08:25 PM
I really hope this update is as good as they say. If it is I'll switch from FCE to FCP
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 02:09 PM
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
chrismacguy
Feb 27, 05:21 AM
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
I wonder if I'll be in the same boat in 7 years :p (I just bought a Mac Pro with a 27" Cinema Display a few months back)
TerryJ
Jul 14, 10:28 AM
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
quagmire
Mar 7, 09:57 AM
But prior to that the Mk1 was the same in both the U.S. & Europe.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
So far this generation of world cars are going fairly well. The Buick Regal is selling in China and in the US fairly well( with the Regal being the Opel Insignia). The Cruze isn't doing too badly either. I don't know the exact number of Cruze sales in Europe, but I heard it was decent. They just sold 18,000 units in February in the US. Holden survives as it is today due to its export business. World cars can be done. They just have to be implemented correctly.
Was only a young kid when that Focus was around.......
Anyway, when the current US Focus debuted back in 1999 I believe it was, it wasn't a bad car. In typical bad Ford fashion, it was left to rot on the vine. It got a heavy redesign/MCE for the 2008/9 MY I believe it was, but it was too late. The 2012 Focus is so much better. Although I prefer the Chevy Cruze.
So far this generation of world cars are going fairly well. The Buick Regal is selling in China and in the US fairly well( with the Regal being the Opel Insignia). The Cruze isn't doing too badly either. I don't know the exact number of Cruze sales in Europe, but I heard it was decent. They just sold 18,000 units in February in the US. Holden survives as it is today due to its export business. World cars can be done. They just have to be implemented correctly.
UnreaL
Sep 7, 03:07 PM
I have been a Mac user since 1986. I'm not a superuser or a gamer, but the one thing I have learned is to avoid models with too much built-in obsolescence (e.g. my old firewire-less, low-resolution clamshell iBook and the late-model CD-burner-less white iBook G3 that replaced it, not to mention the Powerbook 150 [agh!], Mac Classic [aaagggh!], etc.). Except for the lack of built-in DVD capability, the lampshade 700 MHZ G4 iMac has been a great investment.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
To me the move to intel has made Mac a viable option, especially given Bootcamp.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
To me the move to intel has made Mac a viable option, especially given Bootcamp.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 07:43 PM
Why is it necessary to keep your location a secret? What are Google and Apple going to do to you? What *exactly* and *specifically* is there to be afraid of?
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
What, are you worried that Apple and Google saw you shop at Target? LOL
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
What, are you worried that Apple and Google saw you shop at Target? LOL
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.
anatomy heart diagram
Diagram of Heart Anatomy
However, your heart muscle
SevenInchScrew
Nov 27, 01:43 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
Fallout: New Vegas - $35
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit - $30
Need For Speed: Shift - $10
Plants vs Zombies - $15
Pac Man: CE-DX - $10
'Splosion Man - $2 :eek:
http://imgur.com/S5am1.jpg http://imgur.com/SPJU3.jpg http://imgur.com/FTmDy.jpg
http://imgur.com/67VbI.jpg http://imgur.com/9eJ7v.jpg http://imgur.com/i7KPZ.jpg
Fallout: New Vegas - $35
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit - $30
Need For Speed: Shift - $10
Plants vs Zombies - $15
Pac Man: CE-DX - $10
'Splosion Man - $2 :eek:
http://imgur.com/S5am1.jpg http://imgur.com/SPJU3.jpg http://imgur.com/FTmDy.jpg
http://imgur.com/67VbI.jpg http://imgur.com/9eJ7v.jpg http://imgur.com/i7KPZ.jpg
ingenious
Mar 27, 06:45 PM
reasons your wrong
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
for once someone agrees with me ;)
1. he didnt make up a word of it
2. apple made safari before ms pulled ie
3.the ipod has a long time to go their not going to just say screw it when its selling
4.ITMS is making them money after the record companies are paid back for the use of the songs every cent is profit
5. less than 20 people have signed your petition and do you really think its going to get apple to change their entire strategyi can see it now steve jobs sees our online pettion and immediatly calls a meating "i just had an appihany some kid said to make a cheap computer that hooks up to your tv weve been completely wrong all theese yearsapple is now only going to make web tv type systems and nothing else my god what have i been doing"
for once someone agrees with me ;)
Xanderxxx
Aug 6, 09:36 PM
"Mac OS X Leopard, Introducing Vista 2.0"
"Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista"
VINCENT:
Thumbnails: Medical diagrams
Medical diagram
"Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista"
VINCENT:
CEAbiscuit
Oct 23, 09:26 AM
Since there is little to no hope that apple will bring back the 12" casing, my powerbook will have to for now. It just seems to keep chugging... the new (free, because of recall) battery seems to further my resolve in resisting to make a move. The earliest purchase of a new powerbook will wait until next year when I can have a new OS. Simpleton's rule...
glennsan
Aug 24, 06:38 PM
Maybe dual optical drives like the Mac pro. This is getting standard on Macs obviously.
:p
The only Mac that currently has the dual optical drive is the Mac Pro. I would not think that the iMac and Mini would get a dual as well. But I will admit that stranger things have happened.
:p
The only Mac that currently has the dual optical drive is the Mac Pro. I would not think that the iMac and Mini would get a dual as well. But I will admit that stranger things have happened.
Dagless
Jul 14, 09:06 AM
Yeah! Since this guy doesn't want it, neither do the rest of us!
I don't want it either. does that stop you from wanting it? no. Would I buy a Mac with a BluRay burner as standard with a bumped up cost? no. would I buy a Mac if it had BluRay AND HD-DVD burner with no obvious price bump? yes.
I'm not being tied down to BluRay. I'm not prepared to spend a Mac Pro amount of money on a format that isn't the standard. It's not good business to force us into it like that, I'd rather have HD-DVD burner. What with their lower costs and all.
I don't want it either. does that stop you from wanting it? no. Would I buy a Mac with a BluRay burner as standard with a bumped up cost? no. would I buy a Mac if it had BluRay AND HD-DVD burner with no obvious price bump? yes.
I'm not being tied down to BluRay. I'm not prepared to spend a Mac Pro amount of money on a format that isn't the standard. It's not good business to force us into it like that, I'd rather have HD-DVD burner. What with their lower costs and all.
Rustus Maximus
May 3, 11:19 AM
"Install" is much better than launching a disc image, opening an applications window, and then dragging the icon over to the other window.
If that 'old' process is too complicated for people then I truly weep for the future.
If that 'old' process is too complicated for people then I truly weep for the future.
tinman0
May 2, 05:56 PM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I doubt that the Mac is getting the type of multi tasking that you see with the iPhone, more likely it's getting the option to suspend something in the background, but for everything else, life goes on as normal (eg I can batch stuff in an application whilst I continue surfing, reading mail, watching porn etc).
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I doubt that the Mac is getting the type of multi tasking that you see with the iPhone, more likely it's getting the option to suspend something in the background, but for everything else, life goes on as normal (eg I can batch stuff in an application whilst I continue surfing, reading mail, watching porn etc).
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
stefan15
Sep 6, 05:39 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
Mal67
Apr 20, 03:46 AM
I hope so, and I also hope they don't skimp out on the Mini.
According to the Buyer's Guide, it's been over 300 days since the Mini was updated and the average is 248 days. So they're a tad behind.
I don't think Apple have any excuses on this one. It's been far too long.
According to the Buyer's Guide, it's been over 300 days since the Mini was updated and the average is 248 days. So they're a tad behind.
I don't think Apple have any excuses on this one. It's been far too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment