bushido
Apr 2, 05:11 AM
i guess lion doesn't like long german words yet ^^
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1892/screenshot20110402at120.png
edit: isn't there a way to show the left hdd space at the bottom of the finder like on snow leopard? i hate clicking on info all the time to see how much space i got left
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1892/screenshot20110402at120.png
edit: isn't there a way to show the left hdd space at the bottom of the finder like on snow leopard? i hate clicking on info all the time to see how much space i got left
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:58 AM
Well all those measure are bogus. OS X is far more secure than you can get from that Windows crap.
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Eh, but you still have to find the stuff and set it up. In XPSP2 all security related settings are in one place, its nice. And the OS keeps annoying the hell out of you if you dont turn the firewall on.....
OOH, and even better....this one I like:
XP SP2, with firewall enabled, will tell you when a application is attempting to make a network connection, ask for authorization (allow once, allow always, or never), and adjust your firewall settings. If you are playing a game, no more swearing, the OS tells you whats wrong and asks if you trust the application. Good for the clueless people (or, good for those damn games that dont document their TCP/UDP ports)
Thats why Leopard is Vista Reloaded, ver 2.0
:)
Eh, but you still have to find the stuff and set it up. In XPSP2 all security related settings are in one place, its nice. And the OS keeps annoying the hell out of you if you dont turn the firewall on.....
OOH, and even better....this one I like:
XP SP2, with firewall enabled, will tell you when a application is attempting to make a network connection, ask for authorization (allow once, allow always, or never), and adjust your firewall settings. If you are playing a game, no more swearing, the OS tells you whats wrong and asks if you trust the application. Good for the clueless people (or, good for those damn games that dont document their TCP/UDP ports)
Flowbee
Jan 11, 09:27 PM
i personaly would go wiht the ipod becuse it is made by apple witch...
Apple witch?
Apple witch?
ten-oak-druid
Mar 22, 04:32 PM
The classic is great. I got my iphone and was excited about having the ipod and phone combined. But I've gotten to the point where I miss the larger hard drive with more songs. I don't like having to decide which music I can squeeze onto the device. So I've started carrying the ipod around and using the phone for video and calls.
I don't think the classic will die, nor will conventional hard drives in laptops, until you can buy 500GB flash drives for $100. If the functionality of the hard drive suits your needs then you are simply paying more for less. If you are doing tasks that benefit from the access speed of a flash drive compared to a hard drive then of course that will outweigh the capacity issue.
Viva la roue de clic!
I don't think the classic will die, nor will conventional hard drives in laptops, until you can buy 500GB flash drives for $100. If the functionality of the hard drive suits your needs then you are simply paying more for less. If you are doing tasks that benefit from the access speed of a flash drive compared to a hard drive then of course that will outweigh the capacity issue.
Viva la roue de clic!
Frisco
Sep 6, 09:41 PM
After following all this stuff today, I am really concerned about whateverthehell it is that will be announced next week. There seems to
be limited interest in movie downloads, when there are already good alternatives (netflix, the local video shop, etc.) There are definitely some
questions if that would/will even fly. I, for one, don't really care if I rent. I have a bunch of DVD movies, but rarely view them more than twice. So... even though an apple movie download service comes along, I really wonder how successful it will be. Which leads me to wonder... The Steve is not dumb. He is not going to order up a special meeting like this for something that may turn out to be nothing... Hell, it is apparently viewed by apple as much more important than the introduction of the 24" iMac, which is a heck of an interesting gadget. Do you think that there may be some REALLY BIG new technological/hardware gizmo being intro'd? Something that makes the movie store just a minor part of a larger picture. I keep thinking, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. SHOW ME THE HARDWARE!
Agreed! On-Demand is the future for movies. It just needs more of a selection then it's perfect.
Downloading movies is of limited interest to most people. Just give up the Mac Media Center (iHome) and we'll all be happy campers come Tuesday!
be limited interest in movie downloads, when there are already good alternatives (netflix, the local video shop, etc.) There are definitely some
questions if that would/will even fly. I, for one, don't really care if I rent. I have a bunch of DVD movies, but rarely view them more than twice. So... even though an apple movie download service comes along, I really wonder how successful it will be. Which leads me to wonder... The Steve is not dumb. He is not going to order up a special meeting like this for something that may turn out to be nothing... Hell, it is apparently viewed by apple as much more important than the introduction of the 24" iMac, which is a heck of an interesting gadget. Do you think that there may be some REALLY BIG new technological/hardware gizmo being intro'd? Something that makes the movie store just a minor part of a larger picture. I keep thinking, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. SHOW ME THE HARDWARE!
Agreed! On-Demand is the future for movies. It just needs more of a selection then it's perfect.
Downloading movies is of limited interest to most people. Just give up the Mac Media Center (iHome) and we'll all be happy campers come Tuesday!
notjustjay
Apr 21, 12:19 PM
Viruses collecting data on iOS?
... :confused:
It doesn't exist now, but that's not to say it might never happen in the future.
... :confused:
It doesn't exist now, but that's not to say it might never happen in the future.
cmaier
Apr 3, 12:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Are you kidding me. I haven't looked into it but I would bet there's nothing holding you back from investing in apple. You have a computer most likely with an Internet connection?
Go online and trade. If you want to use an investing firm there are plenty, all you gotta do is call them or go to their site.
Try www.Wedbush.com
All you have to do is wire them
Your money or send them a check with the amount you want to invest plus the investment fee ($10 to $50+) and there
you go.
Lol. "stock" as in "I wish iPads were in stock"; not as in equities.
Are you kidding me. I haven't looked into it but I would bet there's nothing holding you back from investing in apple. You have a computer most likely with an Internet connection?
Go online and trade. If you want to use an investing firm there are plenty, all you gotta do is call them or go to their site.
Try www.Wedbush.com
All you have to do is wire them
Your money or send them a check with the amount you want to invest plus the investment fee ($10 to $50+) and there
you go.
Lol. "stock" as in "I wish iPads were in stock"; not as in equities.
AppleCode
Nov 26, 07:14 AM
Holly crap i have the same thing! You have ethe Blackberry 3G?
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
GregA
Dec 31, 11:08 PM
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.True, as long as there is a payment model that works too (for stuff like HBO On Demand). I would prefer to have a single bill for all subscriptions, but if I'm only watching a couple then I could pay them directly.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:32 AM
Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
Apple Bricks for Windows? :p :p :p
Yoyodyne2
Sep 14, 03:30 PM
bmustaf
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
The thing that was most disturbing about CR's reporting for me is that they couldn't test all the available cell phones and determine if the attenuation exists in all of them. If they think this attenuation is important why didn't they do this testing. Seems like they saying that they are incapable of testing any electronic device.
So, after rating the phone number one, they respond to some blogger about how the iPhone has a signal drop. CR then reproduces the drop in bars and gets on it's high horse about Apple not taking care of this with lightning speed. Now because the free bumper program is going away and the problem is to be taken care of with the usual Apple warranty coverage (which might include a free bumper) CR sputters again.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
The thing that was most disturbing about CR's reporting for me is that they couldn't test all the available cell phones and determine if the attenuation exists in all of them. If they think this attenuation is important why didn't they do this testing. Seems like they saying that they are incapable of testing any electronic device.
So, after rating the phone number one, they respond to some blogger about how the iPhone has a signal drop. CR then reproduces the drop in bars and gets on it's high horse about Apple not taking care of this with lightning speed. Now because the free bumper program is going away and the problem is to be taken care of with the usual Apple warranty coverage (which might include a free bumper) CR sputters again.
rikers_mailbox
Jul 18, 02:21 AM
If true, an iTunes movie download service could drive sales of Mac Minis as a home-entertainment device. Not that it is (of ever will be) an all-in-one solution... but development of Front Row will continue and this is just one step towards something good for Apple and consumers alike.
I, for one, am all for the movie rental model. I'm interested in actually purchasing only very few movies. The others I watch only once, maybe twice. If I had to buy them, they'd sit on the virtual shelf until the next video format (VHS, DVD, BluRay/HD-DVD, ???) comes out and I'd just have to buy the same movie again. Please, let me rent.
As for quality, I'd expect nothing less than DVD. Apple thrives on progress. Although I'm willing to bet Jobs is pushing for some level of HD, 720p for starters?
I, for one, am all for the movie rental model. I'm interested in actually purchasing only very few movies. The others I watch only once, maybe twice. If I had to buy them, they'd sit on the virtual shelf until the next video format (VHS, DVD, BluRay/HD-DVD, ???) comes out and I'd just have to buy the same movie again. Please, let me rent.
As for quality, I'd expect nothing less than DVD. Apple thrives on progress. Although I'm willing to bet Jobs is pushing for some level of HD, 720p for starters?
Funkymonk
Apr 2, 11:06 PM
loved the ad. one of apple's best yet and speaks the truth!
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
unlike those crappy iphone ones. "if you don't have an iphone you can't do this and that!" uhhhh.... yes you can.
this more than makes up for that idiocy though:D
ajkrause
Sep 1, 02:47 PM
if it gets bigger, does it get thinner?
Never thought I'd say this but... I hope so.
Never thought I'd say this but... I hope so.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 12, 02:10 PM
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
Wow, generalize much? I want to see you talk after being a rep for a while or with a 1.5 hour commute (one way) like I have now in the New York area. During my sales tour of duty I literally lived in the car for 14-16 hours a day and yes, I did take phone calls (via hands free) and ate/drank while driving. There wasn't much of a choice, only time you could eat and drink was between calls and if you rep onc products you have a lot of driving to do to get from call to call. And right now it's the same. Eating breakfast and dinner in the car saves me at least an hour each day for sleep and I don't get much as it is since I am booking 12-14 hour days on average.
Yeah, I can drive stick and if I can ever afford a fun car for driving on the weekend, I might get a manual again but for everyday commute I take an auto any day. For me driving is a chore right now, there is no fun to be had considering how much I drive each day.
Wow, generalize much? I want to see you talk after being a rep for a while or with a 1.5 hour commute (one way) like I have now in the New York area. During my sales tour of duty I literally lived in the car for 14-16 hours a day and yes, I did take phone calls (via hands free) and ate/drank while driving. There wasn't much of a choice, only time you could eat and drink was between calls and if you rep onc products you have a lot of driving to do to get from call to call. And right now it's the same. Eating breakfast and dinner in the car saves me at least an hour each day for sleep and I don't get much as it is since I am booking 12-14 hour days on average.
Yeah, I can drive stick and if I can ever afford a fun car for driving on the weekend, I might get a manual again but for everyday commute I take an auto any day. For me driving is a chore right now, there is no fun to be had considering how much I drive each day.
trex67
Mar 23, 10:08 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I currently have 34,000+ songs in my iTunes Library, just north of 205GB. I'd buy a 220GB in a heartbeat. I realize not everyone needs that much space, but I currently have to swap out older material (usually live albums and alternate versions) whenever I get a new album (I tend to buy or rip a couple of new albums a week.) And I do indeed listen to everything on my iPod at least occasionally. New albums get a solid two or three day rotation, but most of the time I have it on shuffle. I don't consider this a problem, I just really love music, and variety is important to me.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I currently have 34,000+ songs in my iTunes Library, just north of 205GB. I'd buy a 220GB in a heartbeat. I realize not everyone needs that much space, but I currently have to swap out older material (usually live albums and alternate versions) whenever I get a new album (I tend to buy or rip a couple of new albums a week.) And I do indeed listen to everything on my iPod at least occasionally. New albums get a solid two or three day rotation, but most of the time I have it on shuffle. I don't consider this a problem, I just really love music, and variety is important to me.
treblah
Jul 19, 05:51 PM
Good Lord, 9.5 Billion in the Bank!
Dear Apple,
This just makes .Mac sucking that much more incredible.
Please hire some .Mac engineers.
Thanks,
Every Apple User in the World
Dear Apple,
This just makes .Mac sucking that much more incredible.
Please hire some .Mac engineers.
Thanks,
Every Apple User in the World
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Still a monster, just a smaller monster. Kinda like 6970 is to Godzukei what 6990 is to Godzilla. ;)
Just for you buddy:) IMO, you could beat Godzilla to death with this
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Radeon-HD-6990,3-H-278765-13.jpg
Just for you buddy:) IMO, you could beat Godzilla to death with this
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Radeon-HD-6990,3-H-278765-13.jpg
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
That is exactly what I'm thinking! Seriously there is no need for that many GPUs in the Pro and IMac requires a custom card. So where would all of these cards go - XMac is my guess.
Or it could simply be a sign of a unified driver from AMD. That would make sense as it is a smarter approach than the highly targeted drivers of the past.I don't see why Apple would want to start supporting older 5000 cards for said machine? *shrug*
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8
It outperforms the 320M under OS X. It certainly doesn't "suck" as much as you make it out to be.
Panther71
Oct 21, 04:38 PM
I just received my Proporta aluminum-lined leather case. I got it from Amazon for $29.95 with free shipping. It is exactly what I was looking for in a case that will protect the screen when I have my Ipod Touch in my pocket. It is a quality built case at a very good price for a leather case.
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.
barkmonster
Apr 27, 11:59 AM
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:15 PM
Even then though...I dont think this means anything special for non-MacPro owners. Everything else gets the mGPU treatment:(
No comments:
Post a Comment