lordonuthin
Feb 17, 12:16 AM
dang. well all my computers are down back at my apartment, so my production will be very little. i just started folding on my mbp with an a3 unit, so we'll see how it goes
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
MacSA
Aug 29, 09:09 AM
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
HP have $800 laptops with Core 2 Duo though....
HP have $800 laptops with Core 2 Duo though....
yojitani
Sep 6, 09:16 PM
Sure this has been said more than once here, but those prices, for DVD quality films, are waaaay too much. This is what is called gouging. They supply film and bandwidth, we need bandwidth, HD space - and don't get case, cover, etc. So they reduce overheads and charge the same:rolleyes: . Now, if this was a program for which you paid a nominal fee for membership, they supplied a 500GB USB2 drive, and you could download to your heart's content... something like that... maybe....
yt
yt
macman312
Mar 22, 08:44 PM
October 23rd, 2011 is the iPod's 10th birthday. I bet they will release a version this fall to commemorate it, if not a special edition of some kind. Maybe they'll let Jony do what he did with the 20th anniversary macintosh and make an $8,000 iPod with an OLED display and graphine processor just because they can.
I agree with you they will release a special edition 10th birthday maybe make it like the original (eg put a thunderbolt port on the top like the 1st gen)
I agree with you they will release a special edition 10th birthday maybe make it like the original (eg put a thunderbolt port on the top like the 1st gen)
Queso
Jul 19, 03:54 PM
Nice to see the mothership sailing smoothly. What do you reckon for the Christmas quarter? Is 2 million Macs possible?
Nwanda
Sep 19, 09:12 PM
Antenna gate was blown out of proportion :rolleyes:
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
I concur. I would have bought and used the phone even without the case. Now, it's just a bonus!
It really was a non issue.
However I do enjoy my free case :)
I concur. I would have bought and used the phone even without the case. Now, it's just a bonus!
Sydde
Mar 20, 06:45 PM
Hang about for a moment. I think you have struck on something brilliant.
We let them trust God to cure them, from a disease He has allowed them to acquire, and there will be less of 'them', in the long run.
I like this line of thinking. Mother Nature would be amused.
Nature's cure. Scrape that pink fungus off the big rock.
We let them trust God to cure them, from a disease He has allowed them to acquire, and there will be less of 'them', in the long run.
I like this line of thinking. Mother Nature would be amused.
Nature's cure. Scrape that pink fungus off the big rock.
SeaFox
Dec 27, 10:02 PM
I�m waiting on buying a HD DVD or BlueRay until the price comes down, so I could see iTV offering a HD alternative, and filling that niche.
I'm waiting for one format or the other to win, and I don't have an HD set anyway.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
That is if the price is about $500.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other?
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
I'm waiting for one format or the other to win, and I don't have an HD set anyway.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
That is if the price is about $500.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other?
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
wwworry
Jul 18, 09:20 AM
Who's to say a person won't buy some movies (like for their kids) and rent some others? Maybe a person has netflix but wants to something right away. My point is that it's crazy to say that there is only room for one kind of delivery method or pricing model.
Also it won't cost Apple that much to implement if the studios are doing the mastering and they add another category to iTunes. Why not? To get up-in-arms about this is like complaining about another brand of soap.
Also it won't cost Apple that much to implement if the studios are doing the mastering and they add another category to iTunes. Why not? To get up-in-arms about this is like complaining about another brand of soap.
hayesk
Apr 12, 10:10 PM
iLife has done this for years and now Aperture is doing the same thing. Frankly, I prefer it to the old way.
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
You realize that you'll be on Aperture 5 before you spend more money than just buying 3 outright. The upgrade from 2 to 3 cost more than just buying 3 on the app store.
Why do you want to spend more money?
Yamcha
Apr 19, 11:17 AM
Yay, I'm hoping for a redesign..
Although I probably would not get an iMac anymore, reason being I've had three in the past and all of them had dead pixels, two of them also had yellow tint, infact I was seeing more and more dead pixels over the time I've used it, I have no clue what the cause is, but I until these issues are resolved I'll stick with my Dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW & Hackintosh..
Although I probably would not get an iMac anymore, reason being I've had three in the past and all of them had dead pixels, two of them also had yellow tint, infact I was seeing more and more dead pixels over the time I've used it, I have no clue what the cause is, but I until these issues are resolved I'll stick with my Dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW & Hackintosh..
Abstract
Nov 26, 04:23 PM
To end all further BS do I feel like an idiot for putting sunglasses in a gun case? No.
Was it over kill? Yeah, I'll admit that.
......Apparently everyone was bullied as a child or something because when ANYONE says something that isn't correct or seems "odd" people here jump on them and make sure to rub whatever it is in their face.
Wait a sec....you bought a gun case to protect your Oakleys?
No wonder people commented. ;)
Bought this.
http://files.g4tv.com/rimg_137x0/ImageDb3/240081_PROD/NBA-Jam.jpg
Loving it.
Was it over kill? Yeah, I'll admit that.
......Apparently everyone was bullied as a child or something because when ANYONE says something that isn't correct or seems "odd" people here jump on them and make sure to rub whatever it is in their face.
Wait a sec....you bought a gun case to protect your Oakleys?
No wonder people commented. ;)
Bought this.
http://files.g4tv.com/rimg_137x0/ImageDb3/240081_PROD/NBA-Jam.jpg
Loving it.
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 04:16 PM
Perhaps AIR is an acronym?
Apple I______ R______ :)
Interesting... Very interesting... Apple InfaRed... Apple Internet Reader... Apple Instruction Ripper...
Apple I______ R______ :)
Interesting... Very interesting... Apple InfaRed... Apple Internet Reader... Apple Instruction Ripper...
milo
Sep 6, 08:48 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
We'll see it soon in the macbook pro, I'd guess the MB will be later on.
So are all the yonah naysayers ready for a big plate of crow?
We'll see it soon in the macbook pro, I'd guess the MB will be later on.
So are all the yonah naysayers ready for a big plate of crow?
yg17
Mar 24, 12:02 PM
No trying to substitute facts and history with your own beliefs. Homosexuality is not natural, there is no natural way for reproduction which is the whole purpose of sex or the "reproduction system" as it may be classified.
So someone who is sterile due to medical reasons shouldn't be allowed to marry either? There's no natural way for them to reproduce.
So someone who is sterile due to medical reasons shouldn't be allowed to marry either? There's no natural way for them to reproduce.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Jul 18, 10:30 AM
ideally i would expect something like the 480p HD trailers they have at apple.com, but given the size of these files (let's see 1.5 minute trailer at 480p (848x400 it says) is 40MB, so say, a 120 minute movie at similar bitrates would be 3.2 GB) you're going to have to rent it the night before you want to watch it just so it'll download, even at fast broadband speeds.
Your numbers are pretty close to acuritre. I used the Spiderman 3 trailer for my numbers. It's encoded at 421.8 KB/s (3.2953125 Mb). So for a 2 hour movie (120 minutes, or 7200 seconds) that's 3,036,960 KB which is 2.8839 GB. To downlaod in real time, you would need at least a 3-6 Mb connection since typically, you only get the bottom of the promised speed. This means my 1.5-3 Mb DSL conection would take roughly 4-5 hours to downlaod the movie. Not good!
Your numbers are pretty close to acuritre. I used the Spiderman 3 trailer for my numbers. It's encoded at 421.8 KB/s (3.2953125 Mb). So for a 2 hour movie (120 minutes, or 7200 seconds) that's 3,036,960 KB which is 2.8839 GB. To downlaod in real time, you would need at least a 3-6 Mb connection since typically, you only get the bottom of the promised speed. This means my 1.5-3 Mb DSL conection would take roughly 4-5 hours to downlaod the movie. Not good!
cube
Mar 24, 03:43 PM
Well then why the hell are you even chanting from the rooftops about how great Fusion is *supposedly* going to be when you KNOW that the chances of Apple using it are slim to none? It's like a kid nagging his parents for the ice cream that has a fancier logo and packaging when they know their parents aren't going to buy it for them because in reality it's all the same and will most likely taste worse then what they bought previously despite what their ads say.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
ATI has years developing graphics. Functionality wins over a supposed performance edge.
darkfiber
Apr 2, 08:09 PM
Is this the same Narrator that does the Ken Burns films?
That is actor Peter Coyote. Probably most famous for his role of the federal agent in E.T. Along with many acting roles he has done tons of narration as well. Not sure about Ken Burns films, but he has narrated something like 50 plus documentaries. He was also the voice for Oracle commercials. He did the first iPad commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2BvVcSkNkA)as well. Here is his IMDb page...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001075/
and Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coyote
That is actor Peter Coyote. Probably most famous for his role of the federal agent in E.T. Along with many acting roles he has done tons of narration as well. Not sure about Ken Burns films, but he has narrated something like 50 plus documentaries. He was also the voice for Oracle commercials. He did the first iPad commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2BvVcSkNkA)as well. Here is his IMDb page...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001075/
and Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coyote
aswitcher
Jan 12, 04:16 PM
Perhaps AIR is an acronym?
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
rezenclowd3
Jan 10, 07:33 PM
Americans mostly don't get the allure of a rallye type car. Ovals and 1/4 mile are about as sophisticated as we can manage. :p
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
hunkaburningluv
Mar 26, 08:28 AM
If someone had come out with a console allowing for full-color 1024x768 touchscreen controllers the other consoles would be scrambling to catch up. Even if that controller cost $499.
While there are some nits here (30fps isn't exactly ideal performance, the dongle connection seems too flimsy for real gameplay, etc) I think this is a huge step forward in gaming.
Nintendo and Microsoft should be shaking in their boots right now.
As a rather casual gamer, I'd love to see the bastard love-child of this and kinect.
you think? I think no none would buy the $499 controller as it's too expensive for a controller.
Ninty and M$ have nothing to worry about anything that apple does in relation to games will supplement the market as it is.
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
There is still a vast difference in the tactility (sp) and force feed back that hardcore gamers won't take too - as much as I don't like modern warfare, but I doubt the metric crapload of players would prefer to play with touch controls
but when you remove the need for look at a touch screen, then why need it? A simple touch pad would suffice. By removing the need to look at the screen, you remove the point of it.
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
While there are some nits here (30fps isn't exactly ideal performance, the dongle connection seems too flimsy for real gameplay, etc) I think this is a huge step forward in gaming.
Nintendo and Microsoft should be shaking in their boots right now.
As a rather casual gamer, I'd love to see the bastard love-child of this and kinect.
you think? I think no none would buy the $499 controller as it's too expensive for a controller.
Ninty and M$ have nothing to worry about anything that apple does in relation to games will supplement the market as it is.
Not really. Properly designed controls on touch screen will be just fine... You will see...
Anyone who thinks that the long-term viability of the IOS ecosystem as a significant home game player because of the lack of hard controls is just missing the picture.
I can't figure out why some people think you have to look at the screen of a touchscreen device to use it to manipulate things in a game world. Between rotation and movement of the device itself with properly placed buttons you can do a lot with it, none of it requiring looking at the touch screen.
I suspect most people could distinguish between the lower left corner of their device and the upper right corner, for instance, without looking at the screen.
There is still a vast difference in the tactility (sp) and force feed back that hardcore gamers won't take too - as much as I don't like modern warfare, but I doubt the metric crapload of players would prefer to play with touch controls
but when you remove the need for look at a touch screen, then why need it? A simple touch pad would suffice. By removing the need to look at the screen, you remove the point of it.
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
hakuryuu
Apr 11, 02:47 AM
I honestly cringe at the thought of driving an automatic at this point. I learned on an auto but i've driven a stick for the last 7 years (much of that in Los Angeles traffic) and when I wasn't in my car I was on my motorcycle (love sequential gearboxes). I like the control I have over the car and even in a car that isn't fast it makes driving more fun as long as the box isn't crap.
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
paul4339
Apr 27, 12:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
WordPerfect Office X5?
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/gb/en/Product/1207676528492#tabview=tab0
WordPerfect Office X5?
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/gb/en/Product/1207676528492#tabview=tab0
