macnews
Jul 20, 02:33 AM
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
Interesting...
I found this to be most interesting. I think we could actually see some Adobe apps by Septemeber. Adobe has been going on an 18-24 month cycle and based when CS2 was released Sept/Oct would be 18 months and 24 would be April when Adobe has said basically "no later than".
iMeowbot
Nov 29, 11:38 AM
I was in a Brookstone at a pretty upscale mall where the manager told me they were selling well - much better than their other MP3 players. Brookstone doesn't carry iPods so take it for what it's worth.
Is what they show here (http://www.brookstone.com/store/thumbnail.asp?sid=194&wid=2&cid=67&search_type=subcategory&cm_re=C*MP3*MP3%20Players) the whole selection they have in their stores? If so, it wouldn't be too surprising that the Zune did better there.
Is what they show here (http://www.brookstone.com/store/thumbnail.asp?sid=194&wid=2&cid=67&search_type=subcategory&cm_re=C*MP3*MP3%20Players) the whole selection they have in their stores? If so, it wouldn't be too surprising that the Zune did better there.
ffakr
Nov 29, 11:28 PM
http://news.com.com/Intel+completes+design+of+Penryn+chip/2100-1006_3-6139487.html
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
Whatever. Apple's pushed Universal apps because they are totally ready to die shrink IBM plants to .65nm and that can only mean one thing.. Power5 POWERBooks. Yes, that's "POWERBooks" not "PowerBooks".
BooYaa.
It's the master plan.. we move to a new architecture every 18 months. Apple's totally working on their own MIPS chip since the ISA went open a while back. The Developer copies of XCode now cross compile for 5 architectures but I'd have to kill you if I listed all the Instruction sets currently supported. The new build of Stuffit Expander 11 UNIVERSAL is now 427 MB. ROCK ON Obese-Binaries.
:eek:
But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.
Whatever. Apple's pushed Universal apps because they are totally ready to die shrink IBM plants to .65nm and that can only mean one thing.. Power5 POWERBooks. Yes, that's "POWERBooks" not "PowerBooks".
BooYaa.
It's the master plan.. we move to a new architecture every 18 months. Apple's totally working on their own MIPS chip since the ISA went open a while back. The Developer copies of XCode now cross compile for 5 architectures but I'd have to kill you if I listed all the Instruction sets currently supported. The new build of Stuffit Expander 11 UNIVERSAL is now 427 MB. ROCK ON Obese-Binaries.
:eek:
poppe
Sep 1, 01:36 PM
I would laugh (because I'm mean like that) if the iMac 23" or iMac with Conroe took a long time to come out. So many of us MBP lovers have been waiting for Merom, and to see others squirm like us... muah hahaha
hyperpasta
Sep 6, 08:43 AM
Poop. And I was hoping for a $100 price drop.
I see why Apple came out with a 24-inch iMac the same day... we can't complain! :p
I see why Apple came out with a 24-inch iMac the same day... we can't complain! :p
roland.g
Apr 19, 11:05 AM
I've been waiting for a refresh to replace my rev. A Aluminum 24" iMac 2.8Ghz (Aug 2007) with a new 27". Going to sell my Aluminum 13.3" MacBook and iMac and get a new one.
But I will probably wait the extra few months for Lion. No point in upgrading just prior to what I expect to be a relatively major OS release. I doubt 10.7 will be the $29 upgrade Snow Leopard was.
But I will probably wait the extra few months for Lion. No point in upgrading just prior to what I expect to be a relatively major OS release. I doubt 10.7 will be the $29 upgrade Snow Leopard was.
hyperpasta
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
ehhhhh? :confused:
ehhhhh? :confused:
techluvr
Jan 31, 03:44 PM
2008 Honda Civic Si
Most Civics look horrible. That one looks awesome.
Most Civics look horrible. That one looks awesome.
Luveno
Sep 1, 04:05 PM
If they did offer a 23" iMac, that would be their first "HD Ready" iMac. I was just about to buy a 20" ACD for my 20" iMac, because I needed more screen real estate, now I need to wait 2 weeks to see how i'm going to handle that, too. Bloody Hell :)
motulist
Aug 7, 03:54 AM
Only 100 songs max I suppose ;)
Dude, it's even better than that! Its song capacity is only limited by how many cassette tapes you can carry!
Dude, it's even better than that! Its song capacity is only limited by how many cassette tapes you can carry!
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
backupdrummer
Jul 18, 09:17 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
I completely agree. When it comes to movies I watch 15% of my movies more then once a year and the rest I watch once maybe twice.
I like the a rent/buy model at the price of 3.99/9.99
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
I completely agree. When it comes to movies I watch 15% of my movies more then once a year and the rest I watch once maybe twice.
I like the a rent/buy model at the price of 3.99/9.99
k8to
Sep 6, 04:00 PM
No EMT64, no biscuit.
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
matticus008
Nov 27, 06:46 PM
If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Certainly, but that's not the question. The question is, 'does Apple care?' And I think the answer is probably a resounding "no." If people don't care about sophistication and refinement, then all of the effort Apple puts into making its Cinema Displays is a waste on those customers--they'd never buy them anyway. Why go after customers whose only loyalty is to the best price? They're a finicky and transient group.
It's better to sell to a smaller market which will be loyal over time in Apple's view, and that's a perfectly legitimate strategy to have.
Certainly, but that's not the question. The question is, 'does Apple care?' And I think the answer is probably a resounding "no." If people don't care about sophistication and refinement, then all of the effort Apple puts into making its Cinema Displays is a waste on those customers--they'd never buy them anyway. Why go after customers whose only loyalty is to the best price? They're a finicky and transient group.
It's better to sell to a smaller market which will be loyal over time in Apple's view, and that's a perfectly legitimate strategy to have.
biscuitdunker
Apr 3, 12:50 PM
wow an ipad 2 being used in the dark and it doesnt leak light! where can i buy one?;)
AidenShaw
Aug 26, 11:12 AM
Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there.
Could the deciding factor be the noise?
Not arguing about whether a Conroe would fit in the iMacIntel case - but wondering whether the extra heat would result in extra noise from the cooling fans.
The iMacIntel doesn't have to as fast as it possibly can, especially since the New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre Mac� will be there for people who want a bit more power without the size and cost of the maxi-tower ProMacIntel.
Could the deciding factor be the noise?
Not arguing about whether a Conroe would fit in the iMacIntel case - but wondering whether the extra heat would result in extra noise from the cooling fans.
The iMacIntel doesn't have to as fast as it possibly can, especially since the New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre Mac� will be there for people who want a bit more power without the size and cost of the maxi-tower ProMacIntel.
swingerofbirch
Jul 18, 02:34 AM
I think there already are online download rental sites, presumably for WMP a la Windows.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them. I just have them forever.
Rental makes more sense if the quality is comparable to the current shows they offer. Plus if you buy a movie, with the restrictions the way they are, you most likely won't be able to burn it to a DVD to watch on the plasmas everyone seems to be getting.
And if this truly is a service for some sort of iPod, then they won't be offering HD movies unless of course by some miracle they have an HD screen in the iPod (although HD at any conceivably sized iPod screen would be a waste).
I actually would like a subscription service for both movies and TV shows. I have spent way more than I care to think about on TV series, and honestly I can only watch them but so many times. What do I do with them now? I "own" them, but as we all know, I can't sell them. I just have them forever.
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?
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 14, 04:16 PM
Consumer Reports says "we still think the same thing" for the third time and that's first page news? Sounds more like they're fishing for free publicity.
Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.
My personal opinion is that you and anyone else like you on here that thinks it's NOT a good idea for Consumer Reports to look out for the best interests of the CONSUMER instead of Apple's bottom line doesn't deserve the time of day, in my humble opinion. You seem to believe that Consumer Reports should simply be an automatic blessing to Apple's profits as if they were acting solely on advertising dollars (like a certain magazine called "Stereo Review" used to do all the time) and shouldn't inform their readers of potential problems. All I can say is THANK GOD that YOU don't work for them!!!! :p
Consumer reports gave a fair and HONEST report on the iPhone giving its highest score based on its merits but gave an honest reason WHY they could not recommend it and let the consumer decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. In short, they are doing their job properly.
So I'll reiterate AGAIN that I do not comprehend how someone like yourself could find fault with that line of reasoning other than to admit that you are a Steve Jobs drone. :rolleyes:
Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.
My personal opinion is that you and anyone else like you on here that thinks it's NOT a good idea for Consumer Reports to look out for the best interests of the CONSUMER instead of Apple's bottom line doesn't deserve the time of day, in my humble opinion. You seem to believe that Consumer Reports should simply be an automatic blessing to Apple's profits as if they were acting solely on advertising dollars (like a certain magazine called "Stereo Review" used to do all the time) and shouldn't inform their readers of potential problems. All I can say is THANK GOD that YOU don't work for them!!!! :p
Consumer reports gave a fair and HONEST report on the iPhone giving its highest score based on its merits but gave an honest reason WHY they could not recommend it and let the consumer decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. In short, they are doing their job properly.
So I'll reiterate AGAIN that I do not comprehend how someone like yourself could find fault with that line of reasoning other than to admit that you are a Steve Jobs drone. :rolleyes:
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. ;)
SchneiderMan
Nov 25, 09:10 PM
Exactly.
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Couldn't you find a smaller Pelican case? I mean that's why everyone is up in your face :p
But it's a Pelican.
Ferrari > Honda
Pelican > Normal Eyeglasses Case
;) :p :D
Couldn't you find a smaller Pelican case? I mean that's why everyone is up in your face :p
cal6n
Mar 25, 04:46 AM
As I understand it, once the relevant files are installed, these cards don't display anything until the OS boots, but then they (or at least some of them, like the 5770, 5870 and 6870) work just fine.
But what about rEFIt? Will that put a video signal out through DVI or DP? If that'll do the job, then I'm all over a 6870 black!
But what about rEFIt? Will that put a video signal out through DVI or DP? If that'll do the job, then I'm all over a 6870 black!
damienvfx
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is pure speculation here, but remember a month back when there was talk of a cinema display with a built in camera? What if those rumors started from someone who saw the new iMac and didn't even know that it was so much more than just an update to the cinema displays?
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
SciFrog
Oct 5, 08:24 PM
Congrats, keep the bigadv coming!
