ccrandall77
Aug 16, 01:13 PM
I hope to god they don't use bluetooth. I've had nothing but bad sound quality with those types of headphones.
I hope they do... but in addition to 802.11b/g/n. If they ever provide better PIM applications or an SDK to develop your own applications, bluetooth would be use for for syncing the PIMs and connecting to a mobile phone.
I haven't seen any yet, but I would guess headphones using Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR would provide a better experience. Perhaps something like that'll be available by the time a bluetooth-enabled iPod would be released.
I hope they do... but in addition to 802.11b/g/n. If they ever provide better PIM applications or an SDK to develop your own applications, bluetooth would be use for for syncing the PIMs and connecting to a mobile phone.
I haven't seen any yet, but I would guess headphones using Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR would provide a better experience. Perhaps something like that'll be available by the time a bluetooth-enabled iPod would be released.
Roller
Aug 6, 09:05 PM
I'm hoping that Leopard is more of an increment than the last couple of OS X releases were. I'd still rather use Tiger than any other OS, but Apple really needs to address its UI inconsistencies and usability issues. For example, I think that printing and font management in OS X are much more complicated than they need to be. Apple also should take a close look at the many third-party utilities that fill in gaps in OS X and make changes accordingly.
This would also be a good time to make sure that OS X is as secure as it can be. It's not enough to rely on the lack of Mac viruses and spyware compared to Windows, as Apple does in its advertising- the more popular OS X becomes, the more of a target that it's going to be. OS X needs a robust Security System Preference Panel that provides virus checking and other defenses and actively monitors for intrusions.
This would also be a good time to make sure that OS X is as secure as it can be. It's not enough to rely on the lack of Mac viruses and spyware compared to Windows, as Apple does in its advertising- the more popular OS X becomes, the more of a target that it's going to be. OS X needs a robust Security System Preference Panel that provides virus checking and other defenses and actively monitors for intrusions.
BJonson
Apr 26, 01:02 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
eaweber1
Apr 3, 12:43 AM
It would be "magical" if Apple could make enough for everyone who wants to buy one....could!
Now Apple Fanboys....dont blame it on the tsunami....Apple knew they only had 17 of them to sell on launch day way before that happened.
Now Apple Fanboys....dont blame it on the tsunami....Apple knew they only had 17 of them to sell on launch day way before that happened.
puuukeey
Sep 1, 02:43 PM
if it gets bigger, does it get thinner?
BenRoethig
Sep 1, 12:59 PM
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
Ever hear the expression of seeing the world through rose colored glasses?
Ever hear the expression of seeing the world through rose colored glasses?
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.
SaMaster14
Jan 29, 11:23 PM
here my G
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8002/ashleyqq.jpg
of course i got it fully loaded with Bose Sound etc.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/69/ashley2d.jpg
on the far left in the snow last night
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6651/ashley3p.jpg
Awesome, another infiniti owner! I posted my 09 G37S sedan in this thread (probably first page)... also fully loaded :cool:
Love this car!!
----
And for the Volvo S60R or whatever.. I find it funny how Volvo said that they were trying to get away from trying to copy basic german lines and looks, yet they completely ripped off the Mercedes E-class styling (with the front lights and the car lines)... it basically looks like a less appealing version of the E class... and the side mirrors look exactly like the Audi S-series side mirrors...
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8002/ashleyqq.jpg
of course i got it fully loaded with Bose Sound etc.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/69/ashley2d.jpg
on the far left in the snow last night
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6651/ashley3p.jpg
Awesome, another infiniti owner! I posted my 09 G37S sedan in this thread (probably first page)... also fully loaded :cool:
Love this car!!
----
And for the Volvo S60R or whatever.. I find it funny how Volvo said that they were trying to get away from trying to copy basic german lines and looks, yet they completely ripped off the Mercedes E-class styling (with the front lights and the car lines)... it basically looks like a less appealing version of the E class... and the side mirrors look exactly like the Audi S-series side mirrors...
lordonuthin
Nov 8, 07:09 PM
bigadv are not available on windows but many are running virtual machines...
Aha! I knew it, those widozers breaking the rulz again!
Aha! I knew it, those widozers breaking the rulz again!
speakerwizard
Nov 15, 08:11 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
Squire
Jan 12, 07:26 AM
I actually like the name. Anyone else? :D
Yeah! Me, too. People better get used to it. If I recall correctly, MacRumors is pretty accurate when publishing rumors from their own sources.
-Squire
Yeah! Me, too. People better get used to it. If I recall correctly, MacRumors is pretty accurate when publishing rumors from their own sources.
-Squire
bobsentell
May 2, 05:44 PM
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
Chef Medeski
Jan 1, 07:58 PM
Pretty excited about this Stevenote.
* iTV
* Leopard
* iLife '07
The rumored stuff this year is all retarded. "Maybe we'll all get Apple phones!" And maybe I'll give a flying #$%^ at a rolling donut. I have a phone, and I spend approximately 3 minutes on it per month. My wife and I are thinking of going prepaid for this reason. The last thing I'm going to do is buy a danged smartphone.
Gah. It's all silly.
A phone is best used to make phone calls not for music. If you want to listen to music theres a nano... I dont like the idea of putting them together compromising each other.
Phone Compromises:
Worst reception or larger size due to the added multimedia.
Buttons are geared towards music instead of calls and stuff that is useful for making calls.
iPod Compromises:
Shorter battery life than iPod
No Line-out for superior audio quality.
Worst navigation for selecting songs.
I like a great phone and a great iPod. Not an alright phone and alright iPod in one place so I cant just carry one or the other.
* iTV
* Leopard
* iLife '07
The rumored stuff this year is all retarded. "Maybe we'll all get Apple phones!" And maybe I'll give a flying #$%^ at a rolling donut. I have a phone, and I spend approximately 3 minutes on it per month. My wife and I are thinking of going prepaid for this reason. The last thing I'm going to do is buy a danged smartphone.
Gah. It's all silly.
A phone is best used to make phone calls not for music. If you want to listen to music theres a nano... I dont like the idea of putting them together compromising each other.
Phone Compromises:
Worst reception or larger size due to the added multimedia.
Buttons are geared towards music instead of calls and stuff that is useful for making calls.
iPod Compromises:
Shorter battery life than iPod
No Line-out for superior audio quality.
Worst navigation for selecting songs.
I like a great phone and a great iPod. Not an alright phone and alright iPod in one place so I cant just carry one or the other.
longsilver
Sep 5, 08:43 AM
UK and Ireland stores are still up so now I'm beginning to think they'll announce a Mac Mini AirPort hybrid with DVR capabilities, a huge HD, and input-output and on-the-fly hardware decoding for every video feed you can think of and it'll retail at $50...
...but it'll only work in the US.
Dang it :mad:
:D
...but it'll only work in the US.
Dang it :mad:
:D
wordoflife
Nov 27, 10:01 PM
http://www.pittsburghhotplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/starbucks_il_divino.jpg
Was in the mood for one of these while getting my Mac looked at by a Genius..
Was in the mood for one of these while getting my Mac looked at by a Genius..
jaxstate
Jul 18, 02:44 PM
About darn time. I'm glad it will be a rental service. I rarely watch a movie more than once, and this will keep the priced down. Anything over 4 bucks per view isn't going to work.
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 09:30 AM
Capitalization does not impact trademarks like you claim. "App Store" is the same as "app store".
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used. Windows vs. windows, App Store vs. appstore/app store. "My house has windows," "My computer runs Windows." "I bought this on the App Store," "Modern smartphones have apps that can be purchased from their respective app store(s)." I don't believe Apple needs to include "Apple/iOS/The" before "App Store" to be granted a trademark patent on the term, its style (font, image/icon, etc.), or its brand. It's my understanding that a trademark must include these things and more, which is something that cannot be generalized. (And if I'm not mistaken, the capitalization would at least assist, from a visual cue when looking at the written language, in determining the context of the term in simple sentences like I've presented.)
Capitalization wasn't the point. It's the context in which a term or _name_ is used. Windows vs. windows, App Store vs. appstore/app store. "My house has windows," "My computer runs Windows." "I bought this on the App Store," "Modern smartphones have apps that can be purchased from their respective app store(s)." I don't believe Apple needs to include "Apple/iOS/The" before "App Store" to be granted a trademark patent on the term, its style (font, image/icon, etc.), or its brand. It's my understanding that a trademark must include these things and more, which is something that cannot be generalized. (And if I'm not mistaken, the capitalization would at least assist, from a visual cue when looking at the written language, in determining the context of the term in simple sentences like I've presented.)
SchneiderMan
Nov 23, 07:30 PM
nice!
p-rods?
Hustle :)
http://www.zappos.com/product/7542007/color/249884
p-rods?
Hustle :)
http://www.zappos.com/product/7542007/color/249884
flopticalcube
Nov 28, 02:21 PM
Beta
MiniDisc
Memory Stick
ATRAC
PSone & PS2?
HandyCam?
Like MS, the winners pay for the losers. As a trader once told me, you only have to be right 51% of the time to make a profit.
MiniDisc
Memory Stick
ATRAC
PSone & PS2?
HandyCam?
Like MS, the winners pay for the losers. As a trader once told me, you only have to be right 51% of the time to make a profit.
jgould
Feb 22, 07:53 PM
I love the look of older apple tech still in use. It's a good reminder that you don't need to constantly update with every single product refresh. Helps that it's stylish too :cool:
I agree with this statement. I was using a White MacBook from 2006 until Sunday when I upgraded because 2GB of RAM just wasn't cutting it any more. With the new MBP, I'll be set for a while.
I agree with this statement. I was using a White MacBook from 2006 until Sunday when I upgraded because 2GB of RAM just wasn't cutting it any more. With the new MBP, I'll be set for a while.
Ted Witcher
Mar 22, 05:10 PM
Is there an app in which the face of the iPod touch/iPhone has a digital scroll wheel on the bottom half and a screen on the top half to simulate the iPod Classic interface? Maybe that would be enough to satiate the holders on to the classic?
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/clickwheel/id326413083?mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/clickwheel/id326413083?mt=8
Ubuntu
Nov 29, 06:52 PM
In fact - that comparison is a little early. Make the same one in 5 years.
I am wondering how the comparison for the XBox vs. Playstation vs. others looked like some days after the initial start.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm all for the iPod, I'm happy with my 8GB red nano, but come on people, give the Zune a chance. Many of you are being petty, and I think that this is a stupid comparison.
There is only one Zune model anyway, are they comparing it to the countless models of the iPod?
Is that fair?
Are iPod Shuffles included? Is that fair, considering the price?
I can't access the link for some reason.
I am wondering how the comparison for the XBox vs. Playstation vs. others looked like some days after the initial start.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm all for the iPod, I'm happy with my 8GB red nano, but come on people, give the Zune a chance. Many of you are being petty, and I think that this is a stupid comparison.
There is only one Zune model anyway, are they comparing it to the countless models of the iPod?
Is that fair?
Are iPod Shuffles included? Is that fair, considering the price?
I can't access the link for some reason.
evilgEEk
Sep 9, 09:04 PM
Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Stridder44
Nov 27, 02:13 PM
Or get an iMac...:p
Haha seriously, I don't get it either. You could totally get a low end iMac for the combined price of a 17" Apple monitor and a Mac mini.
Hi, my name is Joe and I'm sitting in front of a 30" ACD and I have a 22" ACD beside me. And I'm typing this from home.
I would rather see Apple lower the price of the 20" and keep all of their displays at 20" and higher.
I agree. I have an old 17" iMac (at least mines widescreen and none of this 4:3 crap), and I couldn't see going any lower. Consumer or not, it makes more sense to lower the current monitors (starting from the 20") and keeping things that way. Besides, knowing Apple, they'll charge $599 or something crazy for a 17" monitor anyway...
Haha seriously, I don't get it either. You could totally get a low end iMac for the combined price of a 17" Apple monitor and a Mac mini.
Hi, my name is Joe and I'm sitting in front of a 30" ACD and I have a 22" ACD beside me. And I'm typing this from home.
I would rather see Apple lower the price of the 20" and keep all of their displays at 20" and higher.
I agree. I have an old 17" iMac (at least mines widescreen and none of this 4:3 crap), and I couldn't see going any lower. Consumer or not, it makes more sense to lower the current monitors (starting from the 20") and keeping things that way. Besides, knowing Apple, they'll charge $599 or something crazy for a 17" monitor anyway...
