aiqw9182
Apr 12, 09:03 PM
That's actually pretty funny.
What's pretty funny is that you're bitching about a layout complaint that's been rectified with an option since last October.
What's pretty funny is that you're bitching about a layout complaint that's been rectified with an option since last October.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 11:13 AM
So, is this the fast iMac refresh in years?
macman2790
Sep 6, 12:46 AM
yeah hopefully by at least the 26th or the 12th. but by speculating that it's going to happen the following week hasn't worked for anyone yet
wal9000
Oct 23, 08:43 AM
MacGadget.de (German) (http://www.macgadget.de/) reports that MacBook Pro upgrades could take place as early as this week. Expected updates include Core 2 Duo upgrades as has long been expected as well as larger drives, FW800, and upgraded DVD drives.
Starting to feel about as likely as flying saucers...
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
Starting to feel about as likely as flying saucers...
http://www.wal9000.aonservers.com/hostedpics/mbp_wanttobelieve.jpg
MacVault
Sep 6, 08:59 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
What do you mean by "G5"??? PowerPC is long gone from Macs.
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
What do you mean by "G5"??? PowerPC is long gone from Macs.
MacFly123
Mar 25, 05:03 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
The Future of video games? This looks awesome, and works great with a racing game that can show you the course on the iPad. Just wish I could run this on my Original Ipad :(
Will this work over Airplay with the Apple TV, obviously in 720p?
Once they enable the use of other iOS devices as wireless controllers then i'll be interested.
And just like that, Apple has snuck itself into the living room game console biz.
AMEN! :D Get this on all iOS devices with the A5 and integrated with the new Apple TV with the A5 and AirPlay and WOW!!! Not just games either, I think apps on the AppleTV will be some sort of hybrid between devices and you will be able to AirPlay the apps to your TV!
This is going to change everything, AGAIN! :cool:
Vision, people. Vision.
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
The Future of video games? This looks awesome, and works great with a racing game that can show you the course on the iPad. Just wish I could run this on my Original Ipad :(
Will this work over Airplay with the Apple TV, obviously in 720p?
Once they enable the use of other iOS devices as wireless controllers then i'll be interested.
And just like that, Apple has snuck itself into the living room game console biz.
AMEN! :D Get this on all iOS devices with the A5 and integrated with the new Apple TV with the A5 and AirPlay and WOW!!! Not just games either, I think apps on the AppleTV will be some sort of hybrid between devices and you will be able to AirPlay the apps to your TV!
This is going to change everything, AGAIN! :cool:
chinesechikn
Mar 31, 05:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Really newbie? You logged in to tell me that?
I guess you missed the point.
Get a life
"Originally posted by walshlink:
I simply LOVE how people talk about 1080p without mentioning bitrate. When the A5 chip can handle 1080p video at 40 Mb/s, this will be newsworthy."
Yeah, I did log on to tell you that "Demi- God" with 107 amazing posts...
You say this isn't newsworthy???? It's not going to change the world, but it is showcasing a developer taking advantage of the new software and hardware of a new apple product. Why not newsworthy? ... Oooh not enough bitrate! Pathetic
I just like reading your post in the accent of the comic book guy from the simpsons.
Really newbie? You logged in to tell me that?
I guess you missed the point.
Get a life
"Originally posted by walshlink:
I simply LOVE how people talk about 1080p without mentioning bitrate. When the A5 chip can handle 1080p video at 40 Mb/s, this will be newsworthy."
Yeah, I did log on to tell you that "Demi- God" with 107 amazing posts...
You say this isn't newsworthy???? It's not going to change the world, but it is showcasing a developer taking advantage of the new software and hardware of a new apple product. Why not newsworthy? ... Oooh not enough bitrate! Pathetic
I just like reading your post in the accent of the comic book guy from the simpsons.
netdog
Jan 11, 06:16 PM
I don't think we are even close in either of these threads. I suspect that 10.5.2 and/or the iPhone SDK are going to contain some huge surprises. Perhaps included in that are some of the Leopard "secret features" that were promised a year ago but took more time than expected.
MacSA
Aug 31, 02:24 PM
I really think it's about time the Superdrive came standard on all Apple computers, it 2006 not 1996. Hopefully the MacBook will also get Superdrive in both models.
paulsecic
Jul 19, 05:38 PM
and the train kept 'a rollin', all night long.
I'm about ready to buy a 20" iMac but I want the new OS. How long do I have to wait?
I'm about ready to buy a 20" iMac but I want the new OS. How long do I have to wait?
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:26 AM
It says Vista 2.0, not 2...
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:38 PM
Why would I look at anything else if it were OK to use Windows?
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.
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.
twoodcc
Nov 6, 05:48 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for hitting 2 million!
2ndPath
Sep 1, 12:43 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro, unless this iMac comes out to be north of $2500, at which point nobody will buy this.
I don't think an iMac with a larger Display is a competition for a Mac Pro. The biggest advantages of the Mac Pro are the expandability and the CPUs, which both put it into a completely different class than any iMac.
I don't think an iMac with a larger Display is a competition for a Mac Pro. The biggest advantages of the Mac Pro are the expandability and the CPUs, which both put it into a completely different class than any iMac.
takao
Feb 26, 05:53 AM
i just checked the austrian chevrolet cruze site and interestingly the 2.0 diesel engine there doesn't match the power output of the engine mentioned here as it's a 163 hp, 360 nm engine opposed to the 150hp 320nm
the power output would fit the r 425 on the VM motori site but then the displacement doesn't match (2 liters vs. 2.5)
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market ;)
the power output would fit the r 425 on the VM motori site but then the displacement doesn't match (2 liters vs. 2.5)
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market ;)
poppe
Sep 1, 01:16 PM
Computer lines (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME. It seems like all of you are afraid of the iMac outselling the Mac Pro. The smart thing to do is, yes, to make the iMac super-upgradeable but more expensive to do so, something which is probably intuitive anyway. People will then make the choice of an all-in-one or a tower. There is no such thing as a "too powerful" iMac. Apple sets the price, consumers buy.
No, now that I think about it, I dont think i'm worried about iMacs out selling a Mac Pro.
I'm acctually thinking how Apple tends to keep its computers seperated in some way so that the people that want a Mac Pro get a Mac Pro even if they have to resort to payments just to have it; that way people don't think they could settle for an iMac at 2399 and say "well I wanted a Mac Pro, but this should be ok too i guess"
Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.
No, now that I think about it, I dont think i'm worried about iMacs out selling a Mac Pro.
I'm acctually thinking how Apple tends to keep its computers seperated in some way so that the people that want a Mac Pro get a Mac Pro even if they have to resort to payments just to have it; that way people don't think they could settle for an iMac at 2399 and say "well I wanted a Mac Pro, but this should be ok too i guess"
Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.
notabadname
Apr 21, 11:54 AM
Yeah, because Google doesn't track any data on people :rolleyes:
Blakeasd
May 2, 06:34 PM
PEOPLE:
It's just a popover box allowing you to delete an app... it's not over simplification, it allows the user to easily delete an app.
It's just a popover box allowing you to delete an app... it's not over simplification, it allows the user to easily delete an app.
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 12:16 PM
.
Machead III
Jan 2, 08:41 AM
There WILL be an Apple phone at MWSF
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
If wish this was more than just paper thin speculation, because this is exactly what I want to be the case: there's nothing I want to do less on my phone than play music.
-- HOWEVER --
it will only have modest music playback capabilities. If you want a good music player AND a good phone then you will have to buy a Nano AND an Apple Phone.
If wish this was more than just paper thin speculation, because this is exactly what I want to be the case: there's nothing I want to do less on my phone than play music.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 31, 01:00 PM
Well regarding defeating the Nazi's and the Axis powers, one can credit the US to turning the tide.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
Japan? Yes. The Nazis? Certainly not. The Soviets defeated the Nazis.
And anyways, as skunk mentioned, there are fundamental differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and Libya. Political opposition (in the US at least)siezes on superficial similarities as evidence of this being yet another invasion. But it is not.
kwiiboy
Apr 3, 02:11 PM
Man. People complaining and I won't even get mine 'till the 28th. Looks like I won't be part of the fun.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.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.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.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.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
kretzy
Aug 7, 03:52 AM
Any Aussies staying up? I think i will have to.
I'm still considering my options. I'd like to stay up but it starts around 3am here and I have to be at uni by 10am and Tuesdays are my fullest day. I might try to get to sleep earlier than usual around 12 and then get up for it.
Stupid timezones.
I'm still considering my options. I'd like to stay up but it starts around 3am here and I have to be at uni by 10am and Tuesdays are my fullest day. I might try to get to sleep earlier than usual around 12 and then get up for it.
Stupid timezones.
No comments:
Post a Comment