twoodcc
Mar 1, 12:45 PM
congrats to SciFrog for 5 million points for MacRumors!
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 12:03 PM
I think you are a minority of one on this interpretation.
Then you should read the entire thread and see that you are wrong in this thought.
Then you should read the entire thread and see that you are wrong in this thought.
Delicious-Apple
Dec 3, 04:48 AM
The iPod will gain a wireless dock (or wireless functionality integrated) so it can communicate with the other components such as iTV and wireless speaker systems that Apple are supposedly experimenting with.
imac_japan
Apr 6, 10:54 AM
Next Commodore 64? You know Commodore started selling computers after Apple, sold fewer computers than Apple, and is gone, right? Why the Hell do you want Apple to be anything like Commodore?
Because the Commodore 64 sold better than anything Apple has built and it was cheap !! It was a computer for the masses....
Thats what Apple needs.....All this Apple makes the best computers etc etc debate is pointless...
They may be making money but the mac is not spreading...the ipod is ! Apple needs to push both lines
Because the Commodore 64 sold better than anything Apple has built and it was cheap !! It was a computer for the masses....
Thats what Apple needs.....All this Apple makes the best computers etc etc debate is pointless...
They may be making money but the mac is not spreading...the ipod is ! Apple needs to push both lines
Maimon Mons
Nov 28, 12:02 PM
...here is a link (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11631/) to the CNN review of the zune. I wouldn't be surprised if they were payed by Apple given how it ends.
For what it's worth, the first zune on the amazon.com list shows up at #21 at the moment. Out of the top 10, 8 are ipods and the other 2 are sandisk models. Zune is beaten out by the 80 GB ipod in addition to the cheaper models.
For what it's worth, the first zune on the amazon.com list shows up at #21 at the moment. Out of the top 10, 8 are ipods and the other 2 are sandisk models. Zune is beaten out by the 80 GB ipod in addition to the cheaper models.
kiljoy616
Mar 22, 03:58 PM
Rather see an ipad with that size now that be something sweet. :)
Zeppelin Air and ipad 2 will surely rock with that kind of size HD. :D
Zeppelin Air and ipad 2 will surely rock with that kind of size HD. :D
marksman
Mar 26, 04:18 PM
Hardcore gaming will never change to the extent it doesn't need a controller and as such the market isn't going to change. Sure I can't wait until I play starcraft or the like on an ipad, but I won't be ditching any of my consoles.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
Spock
Nov 29, 01:45 PM
Its the Pippin 2!! this time its intel instead of Bandai!
NebulaClash
Sep 15, 08:08 AM
No one has offered to have an Apple Rep come out to my house to pick up my iPhone 4 to fit the case, because that's unreasonable.
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users. It's the highest-rated phone CR tested. For a few people, there is an issue. All summer long Apple has allowed everyone, those with the issue and all of those with no problems, to have a free case. Now they are saying you've had plenty of time to get your free case, now we will just give it to those who, you know, actually need one. Just let us know, and you get the bumper free. How on earth is that hard?
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users. It's the highest-rated phone CR tested. For a few people, there is an issue. All summer long Apple has allowed everyone, those with the issue and all of those with no problems, to have a free case. Now they are saying you've had plenty of time to get your free case, now we will just give it to those who, you know, actually need one. Just let us know, and you get the bumper free. How on earth is that hard?
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
swajames
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Of course they do - and many people will have even more. Apple offers smaller capacity devices for those with smaller libraries. For those of us with large libraries or store our music in uncompressed or at higher bit rates, the Classic is the only game in town. Why wouldn't you want to be able to take your entire library with you wherever you go? The Classic isn't a dinosaur - it's the best at what it does and it remains the choice of the connoisseur.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
Of course they do - and many people will have even more. Apple offers smaller capacity devices for those with smaller libraries. For those of us with large libraries or store our music in uncompressed or at higher bit rates, the Classic is the only game in town. Why wouldn't you want to be able to take your entire library with you wherever you go? The Classic isn't a dinosaur - it's the best at what it does and it remains the choice of the connoisseur.
hob
Jan 1, 06:28 PM
Who really needs more iLife. Honestly. I think they should bundle it with OS X, and update it all at once!
BlueVelvet, you have ruined my life forever :p First time I've read that! So true though!
BlueVelvet, you have ruined my life forever :p First time I've read that! So true though!
pjarvi
Jun 23, 09:17 AM
Since the iMac already has a camera built-in, they might just be jumping on the motion control bandwagon. That way you wouldn't have to physically have to touch the screen, and they wouldn't have to add any new hardware, just a software solution. Unless, they're adding additional sensors similar to Microsoft's Kinect device coming to the Xbox 360.
ingenious
Apr 8, 10:50 AM
did anyone noticce that imac_japan didnt respond to my comment about how HE should listen to the "other" side of the story? LOL somebody's a sore loser. no offense, but its a little obvious. i may get flamed for this, so i apologize in advance! :D
MCIowaRulz
Apr 12, 09:56 PM
I wonder if they'll update the whole studio suite
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
My thoughts exactly!. As a owner of FCP 7 (and the rumord price drop for FCP X) How much will the upgrade cost? Price speculation time!
(yes, including DVD Studio Pro I hope. Maybe they'll rename it Media studio and make it output DVD's, Blu Ray, maybe even interactive Quicktime files )
My thoughts exactly!. As a owner of FCP 7 (and the rumord price drop for FCP X) How much will the upgrade cost? Price speculation time!
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:38 PM
If iMacs don't get Conroe inside that is going to be SO WEAK. The Power GAP between all Macs and the Mac Pro would be so wide you could drive a truck through it. Makes no sense to me for Conroe to not go into something. Right now that's only iMac. Market for Conroe headless Mac has got to be huge. :confused: :eek: :(
2.33GHz is the top of Merom folks. How can that be the best Apple can offer non Mac Pro customers? Seems rediculous. There has got to be a home for Conroe Processors in iMacs or a new mid-tower.
I completely agree. If the iMac goes Merom, we can be sure Apple will come out with a headless Conroe powered Mac. (xMac or maybe just Mac, anyone? :rolleyes:) If the iMac does [i]indeed[i] turn out to be Merom only, I'll wait for that other anouncement...
2.33GHz is the top of Merom folks. How can that be the best Apple can offer non Mac Pro customers? Seems rediculous. There has got to be a home for Conroe Processors in iMacs or a new mid-tower.
I completely agree. If the iMac goes Merom, we can be sure Apple will come out with a headless Conroe powered Mac. (xMac or maybe just Mac, anyone? :rolleyes:) If the iMac does [i]indeed[i] turn out to be Merom only, I'll wait for that other anouncement...
DreederOcUK
Nov 15, 05:02 PM
Im really looking forwards to this, if the 8-core 2.66 Macpro its going to cost just a little more than a quad 3ghz Macpro, im going to be buying as soon as it hits the website...
As a recent Mac switcher, coming straight in with a base spec macpro(4x2.66/4gb/1750gbHDD), im now happy to invest in a more powerful machine.
My only concern is the heat... my current Macpro runs 24/7 and 95% of the time is at full load across all 4 cores... and its still silent with temps never going over 52c... will these quad core chips run much hotter, meaning the front fans have to spin faster/noisier to keep the machine cool?
As a recent Mac switcher, coming straight in with a base spec macpro(4x2.66/4gb/1750gbHDD), im now happy to invest in a more powerful machine.
My only concern is the heat... my current Macpro runs 24/7 and 95% of the time is at full load across all 4 cores... and its still silent with temps never going over 52c... will these quad core chips run much hotter, meaning the front fans have to spin faster/noisier to keep the machine cool?
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?
jake4ever
Apr 2, 01:36 AM
Use the dev version instead. A lot more stable than the beta one.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 20, 07:26 PM
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.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
omegaphil6
Feb 8, 06:57 AM
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Blackedout.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 11:42 PM
WordPerfect Office X5?
You got me there. Here's a bit of interesting tech trademark trivia (Microsoft vs Lindows):
As early as a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
You got me there. Here's a bit of interesting tech trademark trivia (Microsoft vs Lindows):
As early as a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
Leslie.Hon
Mar 31, 10:54 AM
I hate the new iCal design... :(
SiliconAddict
Aug 24, 11:16 PM
People and their meroms :rolleyes: Anyone would think the messiah is coming :eek:
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
Imagine Steve Jobs announcing the G6. Its about on par to that. I don't think people realize what Core 2 is going to do for laptops. Faster performance at the same or lower power consumption that is found in the MBP? Yah what's not to like. I just wish my MBP was ZIF socketed. :( Oh well.
kepner
Mar 31, 01:30 AM
Are you able to download System Voices in DP2?
No, unfortunately.
No, unfortunately.
