1984
Aug 29, 12:30 PM
World Class CLIO Material? It's just another iPod/iTunes ad.
TangoCharlie
Aug 25, 06:17 AM
Um, the Mini does have four USB-ports, and a FireWire-port.
OOps, you're quite right!!
http://images.apple.com/uk/macmini/images/indexports20060229.jpg
http://images.apple.com/uk/macmini/images/indexports20060229.jpg
:o
OOps, you're quite right!!
http://images.apple.com/uk/macmini/images/indexports20060229.jpg
http://images.apple.com/uk/macmini/images/indexports20060229.jpg
:o
budugu
Sep 6, 11:28 PM
Is the 160GB BTO HD perpendicular?
yup!
yup!
alust2013
Apr 11, 10:15 AM
But I really want an S-2000. :(
YES. I want one of those so bad, especially an '03 or slightly older, before they changed them. Although the newer ones did look better.
YES. I want one of those so bad, especially an '03 or slightly older, before they changed them. Although the newer ones did look better.
hvfsl
Aug 16, 08:09 AM
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:
Well there are rumors that you will be able to download old nintendo games onto the new iPod.
Well there are rumors that you will be able to download old nintendo games onto the new iPod.
Tmelon
Apr 6, 09:58 PM
I've also noticed that Spotlight has been pretty screwed up. First off it's been indexing every other day which is unnecessary, and while it's indexing it will say ridiculous things like "35 hours remaining" with it finishing soon after.
I think they mean minutes. :rolleyes:
I think they mean minutes. :rolleyes:
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:44 AM
From Wiki:
Holographic disks: standards with 200 and 300 GB storage are under development and prototypes expected in 2008
I've heard about Mac users waiting, but 5 years for most likely the first consumer device if lucky, 6 for probably first computer device. 2012.... yes exactly when I wanted to buy my next laptop after the next four I plan to purchase.
Holographic disks: standards with 200 and 300 GB storage are under development and prototypes expected in 2008
I've heard about Mac users waiting, but 5 years for most likely the first consumer device if lucky, 6 for probably first computer device. 2012.... yes exactly when I wanted to buy my next laptop after the next four I plan to purchase.
InuNacho
Apr 19, 03:17 PM
My early 08 Macbook makes for a crummy desktop and I have been wanting a new TV for a while now. If Apple's having that free ipod with Mac purchase this summer I'm sold.
Aeroflux
Mar 28, 06:49 PM
there's a few misconceptions about the lifespan of consoles - Sony for instance - the PS2 had a 10 year lifespan, but it does overlap with the release of the PS3 - that's how it'll go with the PS4. As for the 360 - that won't be the only platform the MS has on the market - in a couple of years there will be another 'next gen' console from MS.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
I never had a misconception about the life cycle of a console, it's when new consoles debut that has changed. I chuckle at the PS2 reference...very few survived ten years. I never owned one but replaced plenty of bad DVD drives for friends. I had an xbox that worked for three years from day one, and my friend's xbox ate itself on day three. On the other hand I went through eleven 360 consoles in the first year and a half and my friends 360 never flinched the whole time. Would have been less if I had told MS to go screw themselves and mod it sooner. Point being, life cycle is relative.
Also maybe you need some glasses? I mean, I regularly game with no issues. I agree that screen tearing is annoying, but certainly not nausea inducing. Besides, not all games are 30fps....perhaps you are just a little 'sensitive' and by I mean 'sensitive' I mean talking out of your arse perhaps?
I have 20/15 in my right eye and 20/20 in my left. Lasik surgery. I don't get motion sick while driving or boating...must be the refresh rate. Yes I'm sensitive. I've been gaming since I was ten years old, and over time my eyes have adjusted. I have a tendency to not blink while playing games. Maybe that has something to do with it. All I know is it was a struggle to beat Darksiders due to the constant screen tear and low framerate. Of course, not all console games are 30fps, just the majority, with the minority being <30fps and 60fps games being the little yellow bus of the industry. Even then it gets fuzzy since animations aren't always adjusted to the framerate. Sure they refresh the screen 60 times a second, doesn't mean anything else refreshes 60 times a second. I've seen what a real temporal resolution is through Silicon Graphics, so it's been night and day to me since the late 90s. And yes, I'm talking out of my arse, don't you recognize the language? Doesn't make it any less true.
My entertainment system has a nine foot screen that I pieced together with museum grade stretch bars, polyester blend canvas and painted with black widow formula paint. I intended to have a big screen at low cost that is both modular and effective in a variety of ambient light situations. Unfortunately low framerates and screen tear are amplified when the game is 80% of your view. Hence the motion sickness. Hence me waiting for the industry to catch up to the 60Hz standard that has been around a loooooong time (at least on the electronic calendar). Meanwhile I play on my PC with a 360 controller...with no motion sickness.
That's my point. The console industry is playing some twisted bullet-time chicken game. I could have counted the bolts and rivets in both cars by now. PC's keep up because they are modular and allow competition. Right now we have TWO major game console industry giants [with a flat-out loopy like daffy duck on red bull third wheel company] holding up the whole damned evolution of console gaming. I'm fed up with the different attachments, it still feels like I'm getting reamed. All this R&D for disposables is a waste of time and money. Ask Tony Hawk how much he lost on those ridiculous board controllers (I should know since I have one). The only true way to saturate the demographic with a new form of gameplay is to make it standard with a new console at an affordable price. The rest will go the way of the 32x.
noisycats
Apr 25, 02:55 AM
Would feel the same way if it was Google or Microsoft or any other company?
yes
yes
Kennywayne3295
Apr 3, 02:51 AM
Reminds me of the older Apple commercials.
archer75
Apr 19, 11:45 AM
It was rumored just prior to the macbook pro refresh that they might come with a small 16gb SSD drive just for the OS. Wouldn't surprise me to see that make it's way into an imac. Large SSD's are just too expensive and often times not big enough. And you only get a finite number of writes on them before they're garbage.
WCat
Jul 19, 05:10 PM
Like some others here have asked, I just have to wonder how some of these top-tier analysts manage to maintain cred with such lousy predictions? Not only were they off on the numbers quite a bit, but they were also off in the overall direction. That's pretty major.
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
LarryC
Feb 24, 09:49 PM
They are exempt from CAFE( since HD's are supposed to be work trucks and all), but they are required to meet the new diesel emissions laws.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
dime21
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Yep - I'm not sure that I have ever even been in an automatic!
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
dongmin
Jan 13, 05:56 PM
Yeah I guess there are a lot of problems with this.
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
RaceTripper
Feb 8, 11:14 AM
...Nice M3. Love the Alpine White. I still miss my Carbon Black/Cinammon SMG.
JimEJr
Apr 21, 02:10 PM
Yea, we're all safe now...Al's come to the rescue!!!
andrewbecks
Apr 19, 07:31 PM
Yay! I've been waiting for a while to purchase an iMac. I'm trading in my MBP for an iMac. I need the processing horsepower and display size (27") more than I need a portable computer these days, especially since I have an iPad and an old first gen black MacBook that will do in a pinch.
lPHONE
Mar 19, 09:05 PM
Apple comes under fire because App Store is highly regulated and censored. This is the backlash and there's more to come. "If you reject this app, why didn't you reject this app?"- and this is nothing new to us...
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.
Unspeaked
Aug 16, 12:00 PM
They just pulled it off their website a few minutes ago but it was a photo of the wireless iPod!
I saved a pic of it in my cache and posted for you to see!!!
It does iTunes and video and the screen is enormous!!
Full screen iChat messaging is availble with the built in iSight!
It is also in black!
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, looks great for watching movies.
No touch screen?
It's useless to me!
I saved a pic of it in my cache and posted for you to see!!!
It does iTunes and video and the screen is enormous!!
Full screen iChat messaging is availble with the built in iSight!
It is also in black!
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, looks great for watching movies.
No touch screen?
It's useless to me!
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 02:19 AM
Using your example, couldn't they do that with the GPS tech in most fones today simply by saving your location info in a server side database? I wouldn't put anything pass these companies and govt today.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
you can turn off the GPS in a phone and most people assume that when you do it stops tracking you yet as it already been shown it just starts storing info base the cell towers.
I just do not like the fact you can not opt out of it. It just feels wrong to me.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 1, 01:19 PM
Is there really a big market for a 23" iMac @ 2000? I hope this rumor is bogus. I'd much rather see Apple come out with a headless Gaming mid-tower with a Core 2 Duo Extreme and X1600 card. Dual HD bays and one optical bay. AP/BT built in. 3 PCIe slots (one used by X1600). I think that would would fill a gap Apple has in their consumer line-up right now.
