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.
tokevino
Aug 7, 12:31 AM
Anybody have any idea when the video of the event will be posted based on the past? How quick do they get it online?
Usually several hours after the keynote... and then there is the "mad rush" because everyone wants a piece of hat keynote video. Traffic will slow down after eastern coast and central U.S. past mid-night. So if you are on the western coast, stay up late after 9PM and enjoy the show w/ popcorns.:)
Usually several hours after the keynote... and then there is the "mad rush" because everyone wants a piece of hat keynote video. Traffic will slow down after eastern coast and central U.S. past mid-night. So if you are on the western coast, stay up late after 9PM and enjoy the show w/ popcorns.:)
leekohler
Mar 24, 01:01 PM
Oh FFS!!! :rolleyes:
How many times more are we going to have to argue this?
It is not a choice.
I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
Christ! Sometimes this forum reminds me of a Whack the Mole game� hit one on the head and another pops up.
Same stuff over and over�
And people wonder why I get frustrated and end up telling people off. That kind of BS gets old. I've been fighting that kind of ignorance for over 25 years now- others even longer. It gets very tiring, but we still can't stop fighting it.
How many times more are we going to have to argue this?
It is not a choice.
I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.
Christ! Sometimes this forum reminds me of a Whack the Mole game� hit one on the head and another pops up.
Same stuff over and over�
And people wonder why I get frustrated and end up telling people off. That kind of BS gets old. I've been fighting that kind of ignorance for over 25 years now- others even longer. It gets very tiring, but we still can't stop fighting it.
iStudentUK
Mar 19, 06:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm very pleased about this- many countries working together following a proper UN resolution. Using air support and missiles but not troops.
This also seems like a good example of cooporation, even though any country with a decent airforce could go it alone against Libyia right now! All sorts of countries involved, with France, UK and US doing most at the moment.
I'm very pleased about this- many countries working together following a proper UN resolution. Using air support and missiles but not troops.
This also seems like a good example of cooporation, even though any country with a decent airforce could go it alone against Libyia right now! All sorts of countries involved, with France, UK and US doing most at the moment.
remmy
Mar 31, 03:36 PM
Suppose the British fascination with WWII comes from the fact that it was close, we could of easily lost.
Macula
Oct 23, 11:14 PM
Why NAND?
Because I am just obsessed with system responsiveness. I can tolerate things like slow peripheral throughput or a less than stellar GPU, but hiccups and delays are such a turnoff! I would be relieved to see applications load 30-50% faster, with all their components instantly fetched, and with lightning fast task-switching.
Besides, NAND-supported computers is a paradigmatic shift of sorts and, as such, a very exciting prospect.
I just hope NAND is included in the first generation of Santa-Rosa iMacs and laptops!
Because I am just obsessed with system responsiveness. I can tolerate things like slow peripheral throughput or a less than stellar GPU, but hiccups and delays are such a turnoff! I would be relieved to see applications load 30-50% faster, with all their components instantly fetched, and with lightning fast task-switching.
Besides, NAND-supported computers is a paradigmatic shift of sorts and, as such, a very exciting prospect.
I just hope NAND is included in the first generation of Santa-Rosa iMacs and laptops!
princealfie
Nov 30, 08:53 AM
Wonderful equals bad taste?
Isn't our country about the right to have bad taste?
Isn't our country about the right to have bad taste?
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:17 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
shawnce
Jul 19, 04:23 PM
I see a little confusion on numbers, for the straight facts review the two PDFs provided by Apple (data summary is a good one to understand unit volumes)...
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
Q306 Data Summary (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306data_sum.pdf)
Q306 Financial Statements (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q306fin_statements.pdf)
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.
Multimedia
Jul 14, 08:51 AM
Currently, prices of Xeons seem to hover between $500 and $1000. And note: these are RETAIL PRICES for consumers! Apple's prices for those CPU's would be considerably less. So I don't see Apple having any problems offering quad-Woodcrest for under $4000. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we saw quad-Woodcrest for under $3000!Gee I hope you're right. Quad MacIntels For Under $3k Would Be A Miracle. Thanks for the heads up. :rolleyes:
nosen
Sep 6, 06:14 PM
But hopefully these are a better resolution than the current TV show on Itunes. It should be at least DVD quality, If not these price model will bomb IMHO.
agreed, although I don't think I'd ever pay more than $9.99... I'd rather just buy the DVD.
agreed, although I don't think I'd ever pay more than $9.99... I'd rather just buy the DVD.
guzhogi
Jul 18, 09:56 AM
Why not offer both a subscription and an a-la-carte system? The rental movies could be cheaper, lesser quality and last for only a certain amount of plays/days while the ones you buy to own can be of higher quality, more expensive and you get to keep it.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 10:28 AM
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
It is true that we don't know what will be delivered in the future. I am sure 50gb+ discs will be available at some point. How soon, however, is important, especially considering there is a format war. If Blu-ray can get those discs out fast with good yields, then obviously that changes things. But reports are they are not at this point, with no timetable on when they might. Add to this the fact that it is a new fabrication process... this can only mean that prices most likely will stay higher longer, as opposed to a cheaper/easier fab process for HD DVDs.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
Watch HD DVD content on a Toshiba HD DVD player vs. BD content on a Samsung BD player... HD DVD content (using VC-1) is consistantly better than BD content (using MPEG2). Not sure what is wrong with the BD stuff exactly, but something is going wrong. And if it's MPEG2 issues, then all those BD discs out now are just stuck being crap. They'd have to reencode and rerelease new versions of the same movies later. That does not help the BD cause.
Remember, HD is over 4x the resolution compared to SD. MPEG-2 was good for SD DVDs. Not sure how good it is for HD if your disc is maxed at 25gb capacity.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best?
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now. If they can get their act together, this could be a fight... but they are behind.
-Terry
steve2112
Feb 22, 08:20 PM
In brief:
Justin Bieber Visiting
justin bieber in israel church
justin bieber in israel 2011
justin bieber in israel
vicious7
Feb 5, 04:45 PM
My new "old" car...:cool:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5384826941_9becd4f811_z.jpg
mattcube64
Feb 7, 06:03 PM
For something creeping up on 15 years old, that thing is in fantastic shape. Mustangs are an odd car for me. I never seem to like them each time a new one is released, but then the older they get, the more I start to like them. A buddy of mine has a '93 Cobra with just a couple thousand miles on it, and I absolutely love it.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
I completely agree with the whole "liking what you enjoyed as a youngster forever" theory.
Back when I was six or seven, my dad bought a brand new red '95 Camaro Z28. Quite a few mods were added to it, including a 150hp shot of nitrous and more. I was too young to realize why everyone thought the car was "cool." After some family car purchases, my dad eventually traded the Z28 in for a 2002 SS, again, right off the lot. After all the mods, that car pushed out almost 600HP. He's since moved onto cars much nicer than a Camaro; but for as long as I live, the Camaro will probably be my favorite car on the road. I hope to get a new '11 SS here in the next six months or so.
I read a story a while back about people and their music tastes. Many people never really get out of their 20's with their favorite bands. The stuff you like around that age is what sticks with you forever as your favorite. I think it might be something similar with cars. I see cars from back in the early-mid 90s, when I was in high school and then into college, and I get all nostalgic and stuff. Fox body 5L Mustangs, FC RX7s, C4 Corvettes, Syclone/Typhoon, etc. The older I get, and the older those cars get, the more I love them. New cars are nice, but some things just stick with you. And those cars are permanently stuck with me.
Treat that Stang nice Puma, because it is certainly a keeper.
I completely agree with the whole "liking what you enjoyed as a youngster forever" theory.
Back when I was six or seven, my dad bought a brand new red '95 Camaro Z28. Quite a few mods were added to it, including a 150hp shot of nitrous and more. I was too young to realize why everyone thought the car was "cool." After some family car purchases, my dad eventually traded the Z28 in for a 2002 SS, again, right off the lot. After all the mods, that car pushed out almost 600HP. He's since moved onto cars much nicer than a Camaro; but for as long as I live, the Camaro will probably be my favorite car on the road. I hope to get a new '11 SS here in the next six months or so.
DeSnousa
Aug 6, 08:47 PM
I'm sorry I'm really slow, I don't get the slogan :(
"Mac OS X Leopard, Introducing Vista 2.0"
Do they mean that Leopard is years ahead of Vista, like if it were to be like Windows next version OS :confused:
:o
"Mac OS X Leopard, Introducing Vista 2.0"
Do they mean that Leopard is years ahead of Vista, like if it were to be like Windows next version OS :confused:
:o
imac_japan
Apr 17, 07:57 AM
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone
WRONG !! The Mac was meant for everyone !!
Thats the kind of bull people expect from a mac user.....jxyama, its people like you who need a reality check.
How can you expect people to switch when you meet people like you ???
GEEZ -
WRONG !! The Mac was meant for everyone !!
Thats the kind of bull people expect from a mac user.....jxyama, its people like you who need a reality check.
How can you expect people to switch when you meet people like you ???
GEEZ -
bluewire
Sep 1, 12:04 PM
man have i been waiting for this one. the 12th would be great, have a shot at the iPod offer too. W00T
Multimedia
Sep 6, 06:31 PM
I'll Have To See It To Believe It. I can't believe the quality will compare with a physical DVD. :eek:
EagerDragon
Aug 25, 04:56 AM
I hope they add a second Ethernet and Firewire to it.
*LTD*
Apr 3, 02:00 PM
So we actually need sarcasm tags in forums now. :D
aswitcher
Jan 12, 04:16 PM
Perhaps AIR is an acronym?
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
Apple I______ R______ :)
Apple Is Righteous
Apple Internet Remote
