Hairball
Apr 2, 07:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
This is simply an amazing ad.
This is simply an amazing ad.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 06:31 PM
I'll Have To See It To Believe It. I can't believe the quality will compare with a physical DVD. :eek:
spyderracer393
Nov 27, 02:34 PM
Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
dude you may have "beaten them" by getting on the front page, but I sent this tip in this morning at 8 AM and it was not from digitimes, it was from industry resources and factories in Asia so HA I beat you.
cityathrt
Sep 11, 11:02 PM
Gelaskins has just posted their iPt4 cases, unfortunately, they're not covering the bottom dock area and the top buttons area. :( Invisible shield here I come..
ArtOfWarfare
Apr 12, 08:25 PM
Normally I go spoiler-free, but given I seriously doubt Apple will release an official video for download, I'll just follow twitter feeds as this unfolds...
poguemahone
Jan 12, 07:45 AM
Hi
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
toddybody
Apr 19, 11:29 AM
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
You misunderstood me friend...I meant an HD 6950 2GB (Desktop Card)
Yes, its a pipe dream...but cant a man dream:rolleyes:
Lollypop
Aug 16, 07:57 AM
Its going to be extremly tough to decide between a wii and a fullscreen ipod. I really want a wii.
I didnt even think about the wii.... :eek: I still dont see why nintendo and apple cant get in bed together, they both would like to see M$ fail, and they both could profit from a aliance, just imagine, pluging the ipod into the wii and then shopping for music on the wii... :cool:
I didnt even think about the wii.... :eek: I still dont see why nintendo and apple cant get in bed together, they both would like to see M$ fail, and they both could profit from a aliance, just imagine, pluging the ipod into the wii and then shopping for music on the wii... :cool:
NebulaClash
Sep 24, 09:40 PM
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 12:22 PM
I agree, I think it will be called the "AirBook".
And you feel so strongly about that you put it in your signature... :D
And you feel so strongly about that you put it in your signature... :D
iSax1234
Mar 24, 12:10 PM
Primordial soup was my creator. I don't feel any compelling need to trumpet that fact though. Insecurity definitely seems to be one of the afflictions that the rabidly religious suffer from.
If it occurs in nature, it's natural. There are tons of critters out there that engage in same sex behavior, they're natural, why shouldn't human same sex behavior not be natural?
If you feel like you're no different than millions other animals, except a complex thought system feel free to do what ever you want. Also you should work on recreating that soup I bet it would taste good knowing you have an entire universe filled with over 6 billion people and millions of different species of life. Also, try to find those monkeys that are starting to turn into humans, because the Cavemen on the geico commercial tend to hide from me.
If it occurs in nature, it's natural. There are tons of critters out there that engage in same sex behavior, they're natural, why shouldn't human same sex behavior not be natural?
If you feel like you're no different than millions other animals, except a complex thought system feel free to do what ever you want. Also you should work on recreating that soup I bet it would taste good knowing you have an entire universe filled with over 6 billion people and millions of different species of life. Also, try to find those monkeys that are starting to turn into humans, because the Cavemen on the geico commercial tend to hide from me.
uNext
Jan 1, 11:16 PM
I want new displays & new airport extreme.
Just this weekend, I went to my local apple store. I was extremely close to purchasing a 23" lcd display and the airport express. But then my sub-conscience voice started to talk to me and advised me to wait just 1 more week, to see what apple will offer. I cant wait for this event to roll around
and get no sleep in anticipation of what will be released it happens every year.
Just this weekend, I went to my local apple store. I was extremely close to purchasing a 23" lcd display and the airport express. But then my sub-conscience voice started to talk to me and advised me to wait just 1 more week, to see what apple will offer. I cant wait for this event to roll around
and get no sleep in anticipation of what will be released it happens every year.
Daveway
Jan 1, 07:04 PM
Where did you find that image? Are there others?
Its on the Apple.com front page
Its on the Apple.com front page
jbomber
Jan 13, 06:03 PM
am i the only one who doesn't think the name is as awful as people think? :D
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
jent
Apr 12, 11:13 PM
Is there a video of the announcement available?
appleguy123
Mar 20, 04:04 PM
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I am. Form example, in Japan there are homeopathic radiation cures available. And it's perfectly legal to scam people in this way, you don't even need a license!
I am. Form example, in Japan there are homeopathic radiation cures available. And it's perfectly legal to scam people in this way, you don't even need a license!
GSPice
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
MacRumors is quoting CNET? :(
Object-X
Nov 27, 08:26 PM
Well, see... there's this little thing called market analysis and listening to the people you sell things to. I highly doubt Apple was sitting around going "we need to release something new because its been months. I know! How about a different monitor size!"
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Why not reduce the 20" to $399? Why should they when they seem to be selling just fine at where they are?
Dell is putting IMAGINED price pressure on Apple with their monitors. Selling cheaper crap will cost you less.
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 30, 01:00 AM
anyone bought those clear gel tpu cases or the non clear tpu cases from ebay i am thinking of buying a few since they r $2 each
iGav
Apr 10, 03:12 PM
Yes in terms of quick shifting a sequential gearbox is it.
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
tMac85
Jan 11, 11:06 PM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
lordonuthin
Mar 18, 01:30 PM
ill try my best to explain haha.
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
its running off my imac i7 machine (in sig).
edit: ok dw i installed the system preferences pane and now its running fine :D (didnt realise there was one!). is there anyway to control the amount of cores/CPU usage? and also to view the images of it computing? check your stats? hehe
my network usage is sitting on 9.4MB/s now. how odd....
As far as network usage, the folding clients seem to do quite a bit of that for some reason, I haven't heard a good explanation for it though, but I have really looked for one :p
I think there is a place in the last pane for additional parameters you can add "-smp 8" (without the quotes) or other parameters like "-bigadv" if you have a key. I can't remember now how to get the key :rolleyes:
Glad you got it going finally:)
A good stats site is kakaostats (http://kakaostats.com/tsum.php?t=3446)
Nmx-
Apr 1, 11:07 AM
Has anyone else experienced that the temps has gone up with this release?
my macbook 5,1 2ghz core 2 duo seems to run well over 70 celcius all the time which means that my fans are going crazy, and i hate that high sound. its fine in idle mode, but as soon i start a program like Xcode or Netbeans or just browse the web.
its idling at 60-6x celcius.
and nothing is running at all only activity monitor.
this didn't happen in preview 1
or on my SL partition.
my macbook 5,1 2ghz core 2 duo seems to run well over 70 celcius all the time which means that my fans are going crazy, and i hate that high sound. its fine in idle mode, but as soon i start a program like Xcode or Netbeans or just browse the web.
its idling at 60-6x celcius.
and nothing is running at all only activity monitor.
this didn't happen in preview 1
or on my SL partition.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий