RITZFit
Jan 6, 03:49 PM
My teggy
evilgEEk
Jul 18, 08:16 PM
i wouldnt even pay a $1.99 if the resolution is the same as the current video content on iTunes... HORRID!
I'm definitely with you there. I want to both rent and purchase movies, but if they're going to be 320x240 then forget it. I'm not paying my hard-earned cash for that.
DVD quality and at least 5.1 surround is what I would require before I rented any movies from Apple.
I'm definitely with you there. I want to both rent and purchase movies, but if they're going to be 320x240 then forget it. I'm not paying my hard-earned cash for that.
DVD quality and at least 5.1 surround is what I would require before I rented any movies from Apple.
r.j.s
Apr 27, 10:00 AM
"App Store" is a trademarked name of a particular store. "appstore," or "app store" in generic terms and context is a description of a particular thing. How hard is it for these companies to understand that that's possible? Just the same as "Windows" vs. "windows." Actually, I think they do get it, but they don't want "App Store" associated only w/ Apple so they can jump on the bandwagon and (continue to try to) confuse consumers.
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
However, using the term app store to relate to any type of software market will lead to confusion between generic app stores and Apple's App Store - which makes it a trademark violation.
No one is going to confuse MS Windows with the windows in your house.
crap freakboy
Jul 18, 04:03 AM
Until they at least come close to matching the model that Mac The Ripper, Toast and Blockbuster 3 dvd postal rental gives me, I'll have to decline the Studios kind offer regarding rental rather than ownership.;)
gmcalpin
Jun 23, 08:29 AM
One thing I'd like to see is a stylus that can be used with this & an iPad. Before I get flamed, hear me out. It wouldn't be just stylus only. It'll work just the way it is with your fingers, but also use a stylus for fine work like a painting/drawing program. Some people have bulky fingers that are too imprecise for drawing.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
I agree, but I don't think the current screens in iPhones or iPads can register something as small as a real stylus point.
Maybe not, but all third-party styluses for iPhones and iPads so far have been the size of a pencil eraser (or a sausage � literally), and I can't imagine that's what they started with.
Sooner or later, I expect Apple to put some amount of pressure-sensitivity into future iPads or iPhones, one way or another, though, and their utility as drawing devices will increase dramatically.
bigandy
Jul 14, 03:10 AM
a BTO option would be great.
i'd pop one in if i could afford it- it would be damn useful considering the amount of data i need to archive making films... :rolleyes:
i'd pop one in if i could afford it- it would be damn useful considering the amount of data i need to archive making films... :rolleyes:
islanders
Dec 28, 01:08 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
Also, most people don�t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that�s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don�t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
h1r0ll3r
Feb 22, 11:47 AM
Man I hate this friggin monitor. Can't wait until I get a new(er) one.
colinmack
Nov 30, 09:35 AM
...
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
...
Dead on, in my opinion.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
...
Dead on, in my opinion.
Umbongo
Nov 16, 11:44 AM
either way, its both a win-win situation
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
a) you dont need 8 cores?? see the 4 cores Mac pro goes down in retail price
b) you want 8 cores? Great !! here it is
case close.
An unlikely scenario. Don't expect any price drops on mac pros for a long time after clovertown chips are in them.
skeep5
Aug 26, 02:32 PM
Like this?
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
http://static.flickr.com/20/73218496_12cd47ab24.jpg
gawd i hope i don't get banned for that!
uhm.... ok.
AidenShaw
Aug 31, 09:29 PM
Just got my registration, hotel and everything for the Fall IDF... (http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/)
I'll find out about all the top-secret Intel roadmap stuff nano-seconds before the rest of the universe.
And I'll be able to say "what, you're not waiting for the 6-core Snoqualamie chipset and the Sammamish CPU" with a straight face. :eek:
I'll find out about all the top-secret Intel roadmap stuff nano-seconds before the rest of the universe.
And I'll be able to say "what, you're not waiting for the 6-core Snoqualamie chipset and the Sammamish CPU" with a straight face. :eek:
Mobster Sauce
Apr 2, 07:08 PM
Nicely done.
UberMac
Jan 1, 07:04 PM
Prettyful picture from Apple.com hompage
*pwetty*
*eyes glaze over*
Me likes!
Uber
*pwetty*
*eyes glaze over*
Me likes!
Uber
newrigel
Nov 16, 11:03 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
CONTENT CREATION PRO'S will see the benefit! Like DAW's host running multiple plugins and virtual instruments etc. Video guy's that are rendering in the background while doing a file format conversion task while @ the same time doing a cut copy paste edit on some video... Any processes that are CONCURRENT! THESE are the things that will take advantage of multiple cores... the kids on myspace farting around on the net emailing and such are really useless for multiple cores and us pro guy's NEED this multitasking power... BRING IT ON!
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:38 PM
AMD Fusion is a better CPU because it does true OpenCL in the GPU, not like Intel's alpha OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:19 PM
Basically: "You Wait While I Render."
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
celticpride678
Apr 3, 12:51 AM
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
It worked for me too on DP1. On DP2, I had to install Snow Leopard first.
It worked for me too on DP1. On DP2, I had to install Snow Leopard first.
pyramid6
Apr 26, 01:29 PM
It mostly has to do with if it is confusing. Apple has a trade mark on "App Store" to sell applications through an online store. Amazon is using "Appstore" and is selling applications through an online store. Apple has a pretty strong case that Amazon is infringing on their trademark. If Amazon used "Appstore" for a chain of tire rotating store, Amazon could probably be in the clear. As it stands they are too close in intended use. Microsofts strategy is to invalidate the trademark. It's up to the USPTO to decide on the trademark.
dekator
Aug 25, 04:42 AM
I do hope they'll ship new MacBooks in September. I've been holding off a purchase for that very reason. Anyway, new portables should ship this year... before the German government raises the VAT... :eek:
steadysignal
May 2, 07:35 PM
sounds kookie.
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
Takuro
Jun 22, 12:31 PM
The form factor of an iMac just doesn't work nicely with the general way iOS is meant to be used. As mentioned by moneyman, there seems to be a rough adaptation for it if it's used in conjunction with a touch pad, but this still doesn't seem very likely. The only platform that would benefit largely with an iOS layer would be the MacBook line, which could easily enough use a touch-screen interface directly on the existing display without worrying about tired arms. However, this brings up another issue: It would cannibalize iPad sales and blur the defining line for that "intermediate" category of devices between iPhone and Mac that Jobs just finished touting about.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
So in summation, my opinion is that it's highly unlikely.
wchong
Oct 23, 07:10 AM
Tuesday Release!!!!
