ssk2
Apr 3, 01:14 PM
Because I'm interested in the pathology of people like you, and I'm trying to understand how you can compare an existing product with a product that is nothing but talk, to the disadvantage of the product you can actually buy, and decide in favor of the product that doesn't exist. Just psychological curiosity.
Are you kidding me?!
The 'pathology of people like me'? Who do you think you are? Facts are that I've neither held, or used either device, so I'll wait until I have until I make my decision. What's so controversial about that? How am I talking about the iPad in any kind of disadvantageous way? I'm just saying I want to try both and have not made up my mind yet. Rational.
The Playbook does exist too, no matter how much you say it doesn't. What on earth are you basing you assumption on? Where did I ever promote the Playbook over the iPad? Please retract your comments.
Are you kidding me?!
The 'pathology of people like me'? Who do you think you are? Facts are that I've neither held, or used either device, so I'll wait until I have until I make my decision. What's so controversial about that? How am I talking about the iPad in any kind of disadvantageous way? I'm just saying I want to try both and have not made up my mind yet. Rational.
The Playbook does exist too, no matter how much you say it doesn't. What on earth are you basing you assumption on? Where did I ever promote the Playbook over the iPad? Please retract your comments.
Zaty
Mar 20, 09:52 AM
If you want to compare Macs to PCs, you just can't take any PC being sold for $500. Like other people said, you get what you pay for. On the other hand, not every PC is a piece of crap (hardware wise). I bought a top of the line PII 450MHz in late 1998. It cost almost $2000 back then. But guess what, it's still running happily. The question is how long is the computer going to last? The more you pay, the longer your computer (Mac or PC) normally lasts. The good thing about Apple is that there is no $500 crap.
doberman211
Mar 22, 11:04 PM
Well the apple TV has no drive anymore. if i could store stuff on the ipod i would be very happy. with 220GB storage? hell yeah! radio is a good idea too. no internal speakers because they just sound terrible. but higher screen resolution, yeah. i think so. i put movies on it occasionally. the usefulness of airplay features and blutooth are wireless headphones/speakers removing the need for a dock entirely. i don't really see the practicality of even having HDMI. but nothing too substantial. no new games thank you, im very content with klondike and the occasional session of vortex.
quadgirl
Sep 1, 01:07 PM
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
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.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
McGiord
Apr 2, 07:30 PM
They always find a way to zoom in the screen and make it look nicer than what it actually is. The resolution is too grainy.
I am spoiled by the iPhone 4 display.
I am spoiled by the iPhone 4 display.
milo
Aug 29, 12:31 PM
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
That was before the Pro shipped, it's a safe bet since it's released desktop numbers have gone up. And that's just one quarter, I doubt desktop numbers have been on the decline for the last twelve months.
bommai
Jul 18, 05:48 PM
I rented an HD-DVD from netflix (Van Helsing) and it wouldn't play on my Mac. I thought that the current version of DVD player would let you play these discs but all I could find through Apple tech support is that DVD player will let you play DVD Studio Pro burnt HD discs.
Or am I doing something wrong?
I think you are confusing the term HD in various context.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
Or am I doing something wrong?
I think you are confusing the term HD in various context.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
nospeed411
Feb 18, 04:41 PM
I want that poster!!! Where did you get it?
chrismacguy
Feb 27, 08:32 PM
hahaha, a true collector collects what is obsoleat for the simply fact of owning it. if i had more mony my room would be a mac musum :D
Trust me, when you hit 10 or so, you begin to start creating innovative methods of Mac Storage... (Yes, I have 15 of them, and yes, I am not done...) before you start collecting I recommend buying either a lot of shelves, or a lot of storage units...
Trust me, when you hit 10 or so, you begin to start creating innovative methods of Mac Storage... (Yes, I have 15 of them, and yes, I am not done...) before you start collecting I recommend buying either a lot of shelves, or a lot of storage units...
spencers
Jan 2, 05:42 PM
My daily driver
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7117/img713imageshack.jpg (http://img714.imageshack.us/i/img713imageshack.jpg/)
the cockpit
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9210/img0712h.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/i/img0712h.jpg/)
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7117/img713imageshack.jpg (http://img714.imageshack.us/i/img713imageshack.jpg/)
the cockpit
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9210/img0712h.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/i/img0712h.jpg/)
liketom
Jul 19, 04:49 PM
when asked are we expecting any surprises from WWDC regarding the music store - they just laughed :eek:
so i'd take that as movies are coming at WWDC
so i'd take that as movies are coming at WWDC
SteveRichardson
Jul 19, 11:05 PM
Q: Will there be any surprises at WWDC?
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
jwa276
Nov 15, 09:12 AM
Gosh, I'll be able to email and type Word docs SO much faster!! :p
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
If all you do is email and type freakin Word documents, why the heck would you spend so much money on a new Mac Pro? You could have been fine buying an iMac or even a MacBook :confused:
Using applications like After Effects, Photoshop, Flash, and other media apps these 8 core computers will ANNIHILATE my render times and cut production times in half, if not chop them into little pieces and spontaneously combust.
Obviously these machines are geared towards video editing, 3d animation, and motion graphics.... hence the PRO after the MAC.
I'll take all the cores I can get, for this will be a huge improvement!!
fixyourthinking
Nov 28, 10:42 AM
My local Office Depot has sold 1 (one) (a white one) since it launched. They have 8 in stock.
I predict it will be one of the biggest flops in consumer history but will be sugarcoated for many more months to come.
I also predict that Apple will beat the iPod holiday sales estimates by greater than 10%.
MSNBC or the Today show will certainly try to do other "puff pieces" to hype it (the Zune) up.
I predict it will be one of the biggest flops in consumer history but will be sugarcoated for many more months to come.
I also predict that Apple will beat the iPod holiday sales estimates by greater than 10%.
MSNBC or the Today show will certainly try to do other "puff pieces" to hype it (the Zune) up.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 22, 01:47 PM
Yes, it's a company that makes it's own decisions and it's own products. They choose what they will allow and won't allow. If you are a car company you choose to make a mini van or not. Apple chooses what they want, we accept what they give us. If you don't, dont download it or get it, no one is forcing you to have it!
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
Otaillon
Nov 23, 08:59 PM
http://www.ciclismototale.it/c-buy/053-POP-MATANY2010.jpg
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:53 PM
The problem is there are some people that cannot see the evidence in front of them.
You can have an intelligent debate with someone about some contentious issue such as abortion, animal experiments, death penalty etc because there are intelligent arguments to argue both sides. People obviously have different opinions, but I can recognise the merits of the arguments made by those who disagree with me.
This, however, it not one of those topics. Things like homosexuality as a choice, creationism, astrology are not unknowns. There is evidence- scientists don't seriously research astrology because the evidence is in! Some people will still believe in these things through faith or whatever else. [Not that I understand it- if God himself came down now and told me he was real and I should be anti-gay rights I'd just tell him to shove it!]
What we can say is that homosexuals do seem to be getting more and more rights, which is great. I was so happy to see civil partnerships introduced here a few years ago, and I hope it will be 're-branded' as marriage eventually. We don't need everyone to agree to make progress, and there will always be people behind the times, but with any luck anti-homosxual views will become more and more unacceptable in civilised society.
This is good! Especially the last line, and if I may piggy back on that stating slavery & women not being equal to men is now unacceptable as it should be.
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
Honestly I wouldn't cry about any issue with apps. I pay attention to what's coming to iOS and what is approved and disapproved but I look at it as Apple has it's own reasons. As long as no App they approve is forced on me I'm happy.
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
Again, I agree I came without my research on the founding fathers & the pledge of allegiance.
You can have an intelligent debate with someone about some contentious issue such as abortion, animal experiments, death penalty etc because there are intelligent arguments to argue both sides. People obviously have different opinions, but I can recognise the merits of the arguments made by those who disagree with me.
This, however, it not one of those topics. Things like homosexuality as a choice, creationism, astrology are not unknowns. There is evidence- scientists don't seriously research astrology because the evidence is in! Some people will still believe in these things through faith or whatever else. [Not that I understand it- if God himself came down now and told me he was real and I should be anti-gay rights I'd just tell him to shove it!]
What we can say is that homosexuals do seem to be getting more and more rights, which is great. I was so happy to see civil partnerships introduced here a few years ago, and I hope it will be 're-branded' as marriage eventually. We don't need everyone to agree to make progress, and there will always be people behind the times, but with any luck anti-homosxual views will become more and more unacceptable in civilised society.
This is good! Especially the last line, and if I may piggy back on that stating slavery & women not being equal to men is now unacceptable as it should be.
I actually agree. But would you still think this if they didn't allow "Gay B-Gone." Or would you cry that gays always get their way?
Honestly I wouldn't cry about any issue with apps. I pay attention to what's coming to iOS and what is approved and disapproved but I look at it as Apple has it's own reasons. As long as no App they approve is forced on me I'm happy.
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
Again, I agree I came without my research on the founding fathers & the pledge of allegiance.
MacNewsFix
Apr 12, 11:18 PM
Because Apple says "Tape is Dead" doesn't make it true...just like Blu-Ray isn't gone. So that begs the question--is there tape output support (machine interfacing, et al) for FCX?
If you are talking HDCAM SR, the one factory where it was produced is located in Sendai and was destroyed in the recent tsunami. Nobody knows how soon the factory will be back up, but likely no time soon. 10 tapes were recently sold on Ebay for $5000. The general consensus is the recent tragedy will accelerate the death of tape.
If you are talking HDCAM SR, the one factory where it was produced is located in Sendai and was destroyed in the recent tsunami. Nobody knows how soon the factory will be back up, but likely no time soon. 10 tapes were recently sold on Ebay for $5000. The general consensus is the recent tragedy will accelerate the death of tape.
Deej
Oct 23, 06:44 AM
Could it *really* be true....??? :D
Plutonius
Sep 14, 11:12 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
I would rather read about the Ninja stars then this story. It would have even been better if there was a taser involved :).
I would rather read about the Ninja stars then this story. It would have even been better if there was a taser involved :).
Peterson8765
Sep 18, 10:49 PM
Nope, it's those 99 cents silicone case from HK!
What is HK?
What is HK?
steve2112
Feb 22, 09:46 PM
That has changed. The Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax now have to meet the stringent emissions regulations. Why do you think they cost $8K now compared to the $3-4K before the new emission laws?
I thought anything with a GVWR of over 10k lbs was exempt from those standards. I know they are exempt from CAFE fuel economy standards.
I thought anything with a GVWR of over 10k lbs was exempt from those standards. I know they are exempt from CAFE fuel economy standards.