Waterboy4
Apr 19, 01:05 PM
The iMac update is likely to be a spec bump, Sandy Bridge, better Graphics, etc...plus Thunderbolt. I plan to hang on to my current model for now.
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
+1 for the mac mini update. My G4 is getting long in the tooth (ancient by computer standards), but still chuggin' away. I want a MM and Lion upgrade.
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
+1 for the mac mini update. My G4 is getting long in the tooth (ancient by computer standards), but still chuggin' away. I want a MM and Lion upgrade.
kiljoy616
Jun 22, 04:34 PM
Has anyone else here used touchscreen computers? They're a pain! Verging on useless. When I had one I thought it was fun for a few minutes, then I went back to keyboard and mouse.
I hope this isn't the start of OSX being replaced by iOS. I like my compatibility and "free" OS (not being limited to a store, being able to do things without voiding the warranty, etc).
desktop are a pain with this, but laptops can have some functional reasons, could mean widgets on OSX will be going away and ipad iphone apps will come into play. I can only dream :(
I hope this isn't the start of OSX being replaced by iOS. I like my compatibility and "free" OS (not being limited to a store, being able to do things without voiding the warranty, etc).
desktop are a pain with this, but laptops can have some functional reasons, could mean widgets on OSX will be going away and ipad iphone apps will come into play. I can only dream :(
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:15 AM
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
Depends, really. "Windows" can be relevant to an OS or GUIs where both relate to computers, but one can be more specific in saying that an OS underlies a GUI, thus they're two different aspects of software. One could be talking about GUIs and still say "My computer has windows." Point being, how much grey area is general vs. narrowing down to the nitty-gritty of what the trademark involves? That being said, I'm saying Apple should be granted a trademark on "App Store," but folks like us shouldn't be in violation of anything if we refer to others' stores as "app stores." That is, laypersons can do this, but two companies cannot. Thing is, if the specifics of Apple's trademark request involves a digital/electronic store-front for selling digital applications, blah blah blah, it's fine that other business shouldn't refer to theirs w/ any form of that term w/in their digital/electronic store-fronts. BlackBerry Appworld is different enough from Apple's "App Store," where Amazon's "appstore" is just too close to Apple's.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
Depends, really. "Windows" can be relevant to an OS or GUIs where both relate to computers, but one can be more specific in saying that an OS underlies a GUI, thus they're two different aspects of software. One could be talking about GUIs and still say "My computer has windows." Point being, how much grey area is general vs. narrowing down to the nitty-gritty of what the trademark involves? That being said, I'm saying Apple should be granted a trademark on "App Store," but folks like us shouldn't be in violation of anything if we refer to others' stores as "app stores." That is, laypersons can do this, but two companies cannot. Thing is, if the specifics of Apple's trademark request involves a digital/electronic store-front for selling digital applications, blah blah blah, it's fine that other business shouldn't refer to theirs w/ any form of that term w/in their digital/electronic store-fronts. BlackBerry Appworld is different enough from Apple's "App Store," where Amazon's "appstore" is just too close to Apple's.
Just like Knight, I think we're saying the same thing, but maybe we're just coming across from different poles. That's not to say that we're in agreement on whether Apple should or shouldn't have the term trademarked, but that we understand what's all involved with trademarks, their usage, etc.
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
v66jack
Mar 1, 06:04 PM
Yep all of them are hard drives, i have 2TB in each one and then a RAID-0 with 2x2TB. I keep most for back ups of Photos, Music and Movies and OS clones (i'm fairly meticulous with back ups and having them on more than just one drive..but most duplicated clones are taken offline and stored after back up).
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
I must say, your array of hard drives / back up system is mightily impressive
One is used as my external iTunes library as there isnt enough space on the SSD and the others are free space, diagnostic drives, work drives used to do audio/video or photo storage/editing
I must say, your array of hard drives / back up system is mightily impressive
macquariumguy
Apr 11, 07:46 AM
I much prefer a stick to an automatic.
Gregg2
Apr 10, 08:34 PM
I've ... never tried any of the fancy auto shifting modern cars.D
The last car I sold had manual transmission, and the one it replaced did as well. I now have automatics, and later this year will be buying one with that "fancy" shifting. On the one I'm planning to get, it's called Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). I test drove it and thought it was a novelty, but fun to do after having only conventional automatics for a few years now.
The last car I sold had manual transmission, and the one it replaced did as well. I now have automatics, and later this year will be buying one with that "fancy" shifting. On the one I'm planning to get, it's called Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). I test drove it and thought it was a novelty, but fun to do after having only conventional automatics for a few years now.
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 05:03 AM
I think us Aussies make up a fair portion of this forum
timmillwood
Nov 27, 03:28 PM
i think the 17" apple monitor will go well with my 17" macbook pro, but only if they are the same resolution
czeluff
Oct 23, 12:03 PM
In my opinion, there is a VERY good possibility of the Macbook Pros being updated tomorrow. Here's Why:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Chad Z
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Chad Z
ghostlines
Mar 23, 01:30 PM
I'm glad they aren't planning to discontinue this baby. I mean c'mon I still think alot of people use it. The more gigs the better, all your music all the time, anywhere. They just need to add bluetooth to it, I know it has space for a decent battery, so bluetooth wouldn't drain it too fast at all.
Thataboy
Jul 18, 06:54 AM
This would only be viable via streaming, and that won't happen because you can't stream to an iPod.
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
Porchland
Aug 16, 08:19 AM
I thought Zune was not (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1961) going to support wireless music downloads? So many rumors.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:32 PM
if not, how am I supposed to convice my wife this time?:D
Tell her about the extra three inches to "love".
Tell her about the extra three inches to "love".
ErikGrim
Mar 31, 12:12 AM
It's not an update, you have to get a new code and redeem it.
Can you only get one code per dev account? What if I want to install on multiple computers?
Can you only get one code per dev account? What if I want to install on multiple computers?
eawmp1
Apr 9, 09:35 PM
I drive manuals although I won't buy them any longer as there is just too much traffic and local, stop and go driving in my routine.
This.
I learned on a manual, and drove 20 years before acquiescing to the realities of commuting in stop and go traffic. Besides, knee on wheel, drink in one hand, and cell phone in other hand makes driving a manual impossible.
I kid.
This.
I learned on a manual, and drove 20 years before acquiescing to the realities of commuting in stop and go traffic. Besides, knee on wheel, drink in one hand, and cell phone in other hand makes driving a manual impossible.
I kid.
eenu
Aug 16, 11:05 AM
As much as i love ipod and apple rumors it is getting stressful and frustrating that we hear these rumors every damn week and nothing comes out of them. Last week we had the iphone, the week before we had the 2nd part of the none touch stuff it just goes on and on and its peeing me off, im begining to doubt wherther there will ever be a phone or touchscreen thing.
I agree to an extent but this is a rumours site.....so as such your going to get this. If it stresses you that much just don't read the ones you think are the same.
I agree to an extent but this is a rumours site.....so as such your going to get this. If it stresses you that much just don't read the ones you think are the same.
AppleScruff1
Apr 9, 10:13 PM
I learned on a stick, a one ton GMC dump truck. I've driven everything from 4 speeds to an 18 speed Fuller Roadranger.
heffemonkeyman
Sep 6, 08:41 PM
I rather just buy a dvd for $10-20. I'm not downloading anything from the apple store for that price.
What if it was HD?
I think you're right. A lot of people will feel the same way.
That's way they're not going to try and compete with retail DVDs and Netflix or PPV. Apple is going to create a new market with HD downloads before HDDVD/Blu-Ray movies are widely available...
:)
What if it was HD?
I think you're right. A lot of people will feel the same way.
That's way they're not going to try and compete with retail DVDs and Netflix or PPV. Apple is going to create a new market with HD downloads before HDDVD/Blu-Ray movies are widely available...
:)
mc68k
Nov 21, 01:08 AM
yes get a passkey for bigadv
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-passkey
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-passkey
mambodancer
Jul 18, 10:18 PM
I think you are confusing the term HD in various context.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
That's what I figured. I knew it was too much to hope that I could play HD-DVD's in my iMac without buying a stand alone player. Oh, well. Thanks for the reply.
A movie file (computer file) can be in HD resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) encoded in a variety of formats (MPEG2, MPEG4-H.264 aka AVC, Microsoft VC-1).
If the non-DRM'd file is available on your computer, you can view them using a variety of playback software such as Quicktime, Windows Media Player, VLC player, etc.
However, you rented HD-DVD. This is a physical media that requires a blu-laser based HD-DVD player to play it on. Currently only Toshiba sells such a player as a standalone player HD-A1 I believe. They also have a high-end laptop with this player built-in. So, you need a HD-DVD readable drive to playback the HD-DVD disc you rented from Netflix.
What Apple is talking about is authoring HD disks. You can make HD movies using Final Cut Pro or even iMovie by importing a HD movie (probably in HDV format). Then create a DVD image of it that is capable of HD. I have not used this feature - so I don't know the details.
I would have preferred a way to burn H.264 based HD movies into a standard DVD (red laser based single or dual layer DVD) and play it back on a low cost player that can do H.264 decoding (including HD resolution). I guess a Mac Mini is one such beast ;-)
That's what I figured. I knew it was too much to hope that I could play HD-DVD's in my iMac without buying a stand alone player. Oh, well. Thanks for the reply.
dernhelm
Nov 29, 07:53 PM
I'm glad that he confirmed this. Otherwise Macworld in January would be memorable for all the wrong reasons.
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
I'm tellin' ya! I'm in the wrong business. Forget all this deadline - get product out carp. Get in to journalism where all you need to do is restate the obvious with a few well-placed typos, and Bob's your uncle.
Ahhh! I'm blind!
:rolleyes:
Mr. Jobs finished his keynote with the startling admission that there is nothing left: "That's all folks! We've got nothing else in development. See you in 2010."
:D
I'm tellin' ya! I'm in the wrong business. Forget all this deadline - get product out carp. Get in to journalism where all you need to do is restate the obvious with a few well-placed typos, and Bob's your uncle.
Ahhh! I'm blind!
:rolleyes:
jfr001
Nov 29, 05:51 PM
D) Change the remote- no offense, but this remote needs a few more buttons, considering it may drive a media hub.
Well, then you don't understand Apple's magic. That's precisely where
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
Well, then you don't understand Apple's magic. That's precisely where
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...