i_am_a_cow
Mar 19, 05:46 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
If Apple would just stop being *******s and port iTunes and Quicktime to Linux we wouldn't have these "problems," which in reality are nothing more than people trying to use Linux. I am totally for that.
I'm not able to use Linux on my new Powerbook because Apple, like usual, won't open up airport extreme card drivers.
Apple, you are ridiculous.
If Apple would just stop being *******s and port iTunes and Quicktime to Linux we wouldn't have these "problems," which in reality are nothing more than people trying to use Linux. I am totally for that.
I'm not able to use Linux on my new Powerbook because Apple, like usual, won't open up airport extreme card drivers.
Apple, you are ridiculous.
bretm
Sep 20, 11:23 AM
I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
jobesucks
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
javajedi
Oct 12, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
Hastings101
Apr 5, 08:29 PM
Things I miss from Windows:
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.
Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)
Being able to easily theme the OS.
Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.
When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.
The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.
I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
AlphaDogg
Apr 5, 06:26 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
MacCoaster
Oct 13, 04:16 AM
Overclocked my Athlon 1.4GHz Tbird to 1.522GHz, benchmark results (under C#, which was fastest) did an average of 7390 milliseconds (7.39 seconds). w00t!
Gotta love overclocking.
Gotta love overclocking.
HiRez
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :DYou're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:09 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
DavidCar
Sep 26, 12:16 AM
...In the likely event Apple choses to use Cloverton Xeon core as the next Mac Pro CPU, educated speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use. In such a scenario, Apple may elect to keep a Woodcrest configuration at the bottom end for customizability (currently, Apple offers 3 chip speeds in the Mac Pro). ...Why would they change the basic configuration of the Mac Pro? The two Clovertown chips will just appear as high end options as soon as they become available.
milo
Jul 13, 10:45 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.
And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.
EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.
JackAxe
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
This coming year is going to be great. A MacPro with 8 cores along with UB versions of the software packages I use daily. What more could a peep like me ask for... Well, Pixar could offer mult-threading support for Renderman Maya plug-in, that would be nice. :o
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
Good things come to those who wait. :)
<]=)
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 11:33 AM
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
Ugg
Mar 13, 12:21 PM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
inkswamp
Oct 7, 06:38 PM
And because Android and Google operate in an "integrative and open environment, [they] could easily top ... the singular Apple," he said.
It's 2009. Are people still turned on by buzzwords like this?
I assume by "integrative and open," they mean open source. That's great and I love open source software (though there's been some debate as to how open Android really is) but here's the deal. Time and time again we see that what really matters in consumer tech is what works for the buyer, not what makes sense behind-the-scenes for developers. There are lots and lots of open source projects out there that have had success but very few instances where one has toppled and established closed source system. Even Firefox, one of the most popular pieces of open source software out there, is still way behind Internet Explorer.
If Apple keeps pumping out great ideas and maintains the level of quality they've delivered so far, there's no logical reason to think something will overtake it just because it's "integrative and open."
It's 2009. Are people still turned on by buzzwords like this?
I assume by "integrative and open," they mean open source. That's great and I love open source software (though there's been some debate as to how open Android really is) but here's the deal. Time and time again we see that what really matters in consumer tech is what works for the buyer, not what makes sense behind-the-scenes for developers. There are lots and lots of open source projects out there that have had success but very few instances where one has toppled and established closed source system. Even Firefox, one of the most popular pieces of open source software out there, is still way behind Internet Explorer.
If Apple keeps pumping out great ideas and maintains the level of quality they've delivered so far, there's no logical reason to think something will overtake it just because it's "integrative and open."
68164
Sep 25, 12:37 AM
After viewing the ShowTime presentation, it is clear as clear can be that iTV will require either a Mac or PC to function - the whole focus of Steve's talk and demo on iTV was about how to get the stuff from your computer to your TV.
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
Ugg
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Of course nobody cares about all the straight kids out there that are bullied or at least the media doesn't. Even if they're being called gay because they're not as masculine as society expects but if they're not actually gay then forget it. Those people might as well just kill themselves. At least that's what I've seen from experience.
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
gorgeousninja
Apr 13, 10:42 AM
So we have the usual posts from those who follow the old
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
