Hockeyislife91
Jan 22, 04:13 PM
http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n566/Hockeyislife91/Macrumors/S1050311-1.jpg
islanders
Dec 29, 08:35 AM
It might also have the capacity to use a TV as a monitor through wireless airport. If there is a video processor, word processing text will also be crisp and clean. I could get a mac mini and iTV and use my new 42�� plasma as the monitor. :p
da5id
Oct 23, 03:29 PM
I don't know if this update is imminent. apple.com store still shows macbooks and mbp as shipping within 24 hours....
Unless the new MBPs are shipping tomorrow..:rolleyes:
Unless the new MBPs are shipping tomorrow..:rolleyes:
Galaxas0
Apr 2, 11:37 PM
Here's a pic of the content width changed in Safari.
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 06:13 PM
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
But like homeopathy religion can achieve positive things too.
But like homeopathy religion can achieve positive things too.
islanders
Dec 29, 08:04 PM
I entirely DISagree :)
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
Good point.
But it seems like most people are dying for HD over here. We have quite a few cable and satellite providers that have HD and who ever offers the most channel, people are going to choose that one. Comcast is supposed to roll out 20 more HD channels in 07. The same goes for the others.
Direct TV which is one of the major satellite providers didn�t anticipate the demand for HD DVD and they were on back order for months, about a month ago, when I was choosing a cable provider. You buy that HD DVD for $200, a two year contract for HD, and rent the box then return it. (yeah right?) And you had to get on a waiting list.
I don�t think anyone anticipated the demand for HD. People watch programs they normally wouldn�t if it�s HD.
There are still a lot of analog cable subscribers on Comcast, you don�t need a digital box, but they are going to be forced to use digital so Comcast can make room on the bandwidth for more HD channels.
Digital 480p isn�t bad, but it�s 4:3 aspect.
I would say PQ is the highest concern. And I agree price is also right up there, and it�s a different market.
bmustaf
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
They DO, I don't think you have the facts. CR held Lexus' feet to the fire to get them to act on the GX - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/04/consumer-reports-2010-lexus-gx-dont-buy-safety-risk.html .
They EXPLICITLY came out and said "DO NOT BUY". A lot harsher than the Apple "Cannot Recommend".
People trust CR because they're a non-profit that doesn't accept ads, endorsements, or free product. So, I don't see what is wrong with not recommending a product that has a flaw that the manufacturer isn't providing a permanent/non-band aid style fix for.
If you read their article/write up on the iPhone 4, they give you the facts and let you make your decision, but when CR says "Recommended" you can be pretty sure you're buying a product without its issues. I don't think anyone here can say the iPhone 4 is without its issues. Those issues aren't a material problem for me, so I love mine, but I'm not a blind Apple fanboy type, either, so I have the wherewithall to understand that Apple and their products aren't perfect.
I respect CR for making an unpopular call & sticking with it. I tend to trust them because they are open about their testing, results, the facts, and make recommendations based on that. I can make my own decision, so I didn't heed their "Not Recommended", but I do understand and respect why they rated it so and why the Case Program isn't an acceptable answer.
PS - Auto makers pretty much do have to go door-to-door and hand out the fix for affected cars. You get a card in the mail and if it is a safety issue (e.g. accelerator/tip over, etc) they will even have the dealer come GET the car from you until it is "made safe" again. The onus is *NOT* on the owner, the company has to be proactive about it. Besides, CR isn't asking Apple to send a Steve Jobs look alike to everyone's home to put a case on their phone - they're just asking Apple to provide a *permanent* fix, be it a *permanent* case program (which I think is a band-aid, and I think CR sees it that way, too) or a *permanent* hardware fix. There is no certainty what the case (no pun intended) is going to be after Sept 30 - they have a point there.
Follow up - Lexus fixed the problem and CR lifted their "DO NOT BUY" recommendation - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/video-lexus-gx-460-passes-retest-consumer-reports-lifts-dont-buy-label.html . CR is *NOT* the problem here, it's Apple penchant for hubris/self-involvement. I love Apple and their products, but I'm not fooling myself to expect that they'll be any more consumer-friendly and honest than they need to be to turn a profit/feed Steve's ego.
Get your facts straight before you spout off with inaccurate rhetoric.
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
They EXPLICITLY came out and said "DO NOT BUY". A lot harsher than the Apple "Cannot Recommend".
People trust CR because they're a non-profit that doesn't accept ads, endorsements, or free product. So, I don't see what is wrong with not recommending a product that has a flaw that the manufacturer isn't providing a permanent/non-band aid style fix for.
If you read their article/write up on the iPhone 4, they give you the facts and let you make your decision, but when CR says "Recommended" you can be pretty sure you're buying a product without its issues. I don't think anyone here can say the iPhone 4 is without its issues. Those issues aren't a material problem for me, so I love mine, but I'm not a blind Apple fanboy type, either, so I have the wherewithall to understand that Apple and their products aren't perfect.
I respect CR for making an unpopular call & sticking with it. I tend to trust them because they are open about their testing, results, the facts, and make recommendations based on that. I can make my own decision, so I didn't heed their "Not Recommended", but I do understand and respect why they rated it so and why the Case Program isn't an acceptable answer.
PS - Auto makers pretty much do have to go door-to-door and hand out the fix for affected cars. You get a card in the mail and if it is a safety issue (e.g. accelerator/tip over, etc) they will even have the dealer come GET the car from you until it is "made safe" again. The onus is *NOT* on the owner, the company has to be proactive about it. Besides, CR isn't asking Apple to send a Steve Jobs look alike to everyone's home to put a case on their phone - they're just asking Apple to provide a *permanent* fix, be it a *permanent* case program (which I think is a band-aid, and I think CR sees it that way, too) or a *permanent* hardware fix. There is no certainty what the case (no pun intended) is going to be after Sept 30 - they have a point there.
Follow up - Lexus fixed the problem and CR lifted their "DO NOT BUY" recommendation - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/video-lexus-gx-460-passes-retest-consumer-reports-lifts-dont-buy-label.html . CR is *NOT* the problem here, it's Apple penchant for hubris/self-involvement. I love Apple and their products, but I'm not fooling myself to expect that they'll be any more consumer-friendly and honest than they need to be to turn a profit/feed Steve's ego.
Get your facts straight before you spout off with inaccurate rhetoric.
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
Hisdem
Jan 23, 10:54 PM
Im jealous, im regretting not getting a Subaru Legacy. I got a 2010 Ford Fusion, should have got the legacy for the good looks and the AWD.
I got a Fusion last year too, and if the Legacy was sold over here I would have had a tough choice! I would have ended up with the Legacy though for the looks. AWD is useless here, so really not a reason to get it. :o
I got a Fusion last year too, and if the Legacy was sold over here I would have had a tough choice! I would have ended up with the Legacy though for the looks. AWD is useless here, so really not a reason to get it. :o
mac4lifenyc
Apr 19, 11:23 AM
I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.
LarryC
Mar 4, 02:39 PM
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
Do you have any supporting evidence to back up this claim of yours that small cars are safer than trucks and SUV's? It might be selfish in your eyes that I bought an SUV for my wife to drive around in, I call it being being protective and reasonable! I should also add that I drive a 2009 Dodge RAM and I love it!
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
Do you have any supporting evidence to back up this claim of yours that small cars are safer than trucks and SUV's? It might be selfish in your eyes that I bought an SUV for my wife to drive around in, I call it being being protective and reasonable! I should also add that I drive a 2009 Dodge RAM and I love it!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 31, 01:00 PM
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
stcanard
Nov 28, 03:59 PM
I would argue, that MS success isn't because of it's OS, it's because of third party support.
Repeat after me:
The monopoly is not Windows. The monopoly is MS Word.
Repeat after me:
The monopoly is not Windows. The monopoly is MS Word.
bketchum
Sep 1, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
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
Gawd, I hope so.
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
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
Gawd, I hope so.
Lloyd Christmas
Nov 24, 10:15 PM
Removed Satchel
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.[/QUOTE]
i was thinking more along the lines of Alan from The Hangover.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.[/QUOTE]
i was thinking more along the lines of Alan from The Hangover.
Scarlet Fever
Oct 23, 07:42 AM
can't wait for the "my C2D MBP isn't much faster than my old CD MBP; Why did you make us wait, Apple?!?!" threads to emerge
ill just sit here, blissfully working away on my excessivly powerful baseline MacBook... :D
ill just sit here, blissfully working away on my excessivly powerful baseline MacBook... :D
Mokona
Apr 27, 07:25 AM
Geez... You guys talk about intelligence...
I actually feel more stupid after reading this thread.
Real knowledge is knowing you know nothing. How are we to say "apple thinks this" and "apple should do that"?
Being the crass business student I am, I say, let Steve do what he wants. Should Apple die, let it. Multimillion dollar corporations come and go, and if it goes it will be replaced by something different (probably with as many fundamentalists following it as apple has). This entire thread is just unnecessary. (and so's the petition, sorry.)
I actually feel more stupid after reading this thread.
Real knowledge is knowing you know nothing. How are we to say "apple thinks this" and "apple should do that"?
Being the crass business student I am, I say, let Steve do what he wants. Should Apple die, let it. Multimillion dollar corporations come and go, and if it goes it will be replaced by something different (probably with as many fundamentalists following it as apple has). This entire thread is just unnecessary. (and so's the petition, sorry.)
sappy1
Sep 15, 12:03 PM
I don't see how. I saw it being reported on the national evening newscasts and on the front pages of newspapers. How much more reporting could there possibly have been?
On TV, everyone was reporting that the antenna was affected only if you touched it at the black stripes. For me, touching the antenna almost anywhere made the signal go down.
On TV, everyone was reporting that the antenna was affected only if you touched it at the black stripes. For me, touching the antenna almost anywhere made the signal go down.
imac_japan
Mar 19, 06:14 AM
WOMBAT indeed!
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...
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...
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
rdowns
Mar 22, 01:26 PM
So I guess I can't be in the guard or reserve...
Not at all, provided you meet the requirements. I was merely pointing out that a Director of IT posted on a Mac forum asking how to remotely access his network.
Based on your posts, I question if you meet the age requirements of this forum.
Not at all, provided you meet the requirements. I was merely pointing out that a Director of IT posted on a Mac forum asking how to remotely access his network.
Based on your posts, I question if you meet the age requirements of this forum.
VanNess
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
Didn't read the article yet, but why on earth would Apple announce an iTunes/Movie rental service at the WWDC? With Leopard and the probability of new hardware announcements, it looks like Jobs is already going to be plenty busy giving that slide clicker of his a workout. So unless there is some sort of special tie-in with yet to be disclosed Leopard whiz bang technologies and the Video service, why WWDC?
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
twoodcc
Dec 27, 09:26 AM
It worked...
just enough points to take 4th place back (at least temporarily)
;)
nice. glad it worked for you!
and congrats to mc68k for 9 million points!
and congrats to whiterabbit for 5 million points!
just enough points to take 4th place back (at least temporarily)
;)
nice. glad it worked for you!
and congrats to mc68k for 9 million points!
and congrats to whiterabbit for 5 million points!
Danksi
Dec 31, 10:59 PM
I guess the problem with a subscription model is, for now, the cost of bandwidth to Apple. A bittorrent-like sharing system might solve that.
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.
FFTT
Nov 18, 08:56 PM
I think the number or cores will finally level off for a while once 8 core machines
become mainstream.
The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.
Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.
The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.
There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.
become mainstream.
The next goal will be production refinements like 45 nm production for greater energy efficiency.
Software developers will need to re-train or hire new software engineers who know how to take advantage of multi-core architecture.
The big question for those who must have the newest, most powerful system will be how much RAM they'll need to take advantage of the new architecture.
There are quite a few audio/video production professionals wondering how all this
will help to improve their workflow capabilties.
No comments:
Post a Comment