imac_japan
Mar 27, 06:45 AM
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
Sorry but I disagree - what you say here is just something you made up !!!! Safari is a good browser and Apple only made it cause MS pulled IE. Think about it. Apple may have money but it needs to do something else to kick start growth....The Ipod doesn't have long to go...Itunes will still do well but it doesn't give Apple enough money !
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
Sorry but I disagree - what you say here is just something you made up !!!! Safari is a good browser and Apple only made it cause MS pulled IE. Think about it. Apple may have money but it needs to do something else to kick start growth....The Ipod doesn't have long to go...Itunes will still do well but it doesn't give Apple enough money !
Don't forget - please sign the petition.....
marksman
Mar 27, 11:36 PM
It is amazing how limited in vision some people are...
Seriously people stuck with this idea that the future of gaming is going to be non-portable systems with game controllers forever are going to be very disappointed in the future.
Ultimately gesture based movements and other mechanisms will be used for gaming, not a freaking glorified joystick. It is silly to believe otherwise.
Again people saying you couldn't play with a touchscreen device without looking at it have no imagination or understanding. Definately within two years you will be shown to be horribly wrong on this point.
You keep believing the future of gaming is going to remain in the hands of traditional 8 year console development cycles... It is not going to happen.
It would be like saying you can't play any real game on a console, you need a pc for it. I certainly can do much more in terms of controlling and playing a game on a computer than I can do with any console controller.
Seriously people stuck with this idea that the future of gaming is going to be non-portable systems with game controllers forever are going to be very disappointed in the future.
Ultimately gesture based movements and other mechanisms will be used for gaming, not a freaking glorified joystick. It is silly to believe otherwise.
Again people saying you couldn't play with a touchscreen device without looking at it have no imagination or understanding. Definately within two years you will be shown to be horribly wrong on this point.
You keep believing the future of gaming is going to remain in the hands of traditional 8 year console development cycles... It is not going to happen.
It would be like saying you can't play any real game on a console, you need a pc for it. I certainly can do much more in terms of controlling and playing a game on a computer than I can do with any console controller.
Link2999
Sep 11, 05:55 PM
Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmI98mNZEM
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
Bestbuy supposedly has the new GripVue for the iPod Touch.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:13 PM
Call the 23" iMac Pro, paint it black, give it a glossy screen, charge 30% more, awright!! The prestige!!
Joking.
I think a 23" iMac would be close in price to a standard MacPro tower...it would make my next upgrade a tougher decision than otherwise would be the case. I'd probably go for the 23 if she had 4GB ram (easily acquirable ram) potential and a decent GPU. God! I'd have a 19" + 23" setup!! Holy Mother of Jesus!! I think I just soiled myself.
Oh, I think disposing of the chin would be desirable and might be possible.
Joking.
I think a 23" iMac would be close in price to a standard MacPro tower...it would make my next upgrade a tougher decision than otherwise would be the case. I'd probably go for the 23 if she had 4GB ram (easily acquirable ram) potential and a decent GPU. God! I'd have a 19" + 23" setup!! Holy Mother of Jesus!! I think I just soiled myself.
Oh, I think disposing of the chin would be desirable and might be possible.
mac-er
Jul 20, 08:19 AM
"We're not sitting around doing nothing," Apple said about the prospect that mobile phones may soon emerge as very capable digital music players and challenge the iPod.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
Lepton
Jan 12, 09:27 AM
Subtract keyboard. Add multi-touch and WiMax. Thin as an iPhone.
NewSc2
Nov 29, 04:49 PM
New features? I can see it now...
Nike+iTV. Track your calories, heart rate, and more, while watching TV.
Nike+iTV. Track your calories, heart rate, and more, while watching TV.
viggin
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
extraextra
Aug 29, 09:52 AM
i think the main thing instead of saying apple is a full 64-bit company is to say they are a full dual-core company, which if they put in meron, one will have to still be single core. dual core yonah or single core meron? (in the base machine)
Fully dual-core doesn't sound particularly impressive, and I think other companies can claim that they are fully dual-core as well.
It's Merom, by the way.
I'd rather them put the Yonah in and lower the price.
Fully dual-core doesn't sound particularly impressive, and I think other companies can claim that they are fully dual-core as well.
It's Merom, by the way.
I'd rather them put the Yonah in and lower the price.
dime21
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Yep - I'm not sure that I have ever even been in an automatic!
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
ingenious
Apr 5, 02:00 PM
Now that has to be the most double standard quote that I have ever read !!!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
excuse me, but WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN? JK! seriously tho, you should just do one of two things:
1)give up cuz ur obviously wrong and not gaining much support!
2)move to mars and live in your own little dream world where apple is dying.
apple did not have to create the ipod to stay profitable. they are debt free and have 5b in the bank. computers are making more the double what the ipod's making. c'mon man, do ur research! some mod should just delete this thread. it's pointless!
Apple had to expand beyond its computers to be profitable....If not for the Ipod - Apple wouldnt be making money.
Steve get Apple into gear man ! Drop prices - Take on the market...With good marketing , Apple will not cheapen..
excuse me, but WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN? JK! seriously tho, you should just do one of two things:
1)give up cuz ur obviously wrong and not gaining much support!
2)move to mars and live in your own little dream world where apple is dying.
apple did not have to create the ipod to stay profitable. they are debt free and have 5b in the bank. computers are making more the double what the ipod's making. c'mon man, do ur research! some mod should just delete this thread. it's pointless!
Rot'nApple
Apr 2, 08:16 PM
Did this ad make anyone else misty-eyed, or is it just me? Anyone?
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/06/8552.jpg?key=1244084625
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2009/06/8552.jpg?key=1244084625
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 03:57 PM
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 10:40 AM
Please explain to me who would buy a mini and why?
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?Needs to be $499 for the base. I agree with you. BUT, did anyone notice they have a DDR333 ram description when it is really PC 5300 running @ 667MHz? What a screwup. :eek:
Omni via Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a pair of 1GB sticks for $174 instead of Apple's $225. Save $50 and have something to sell on eBay. - two 256 sticks. Wonder if anyone is buying those? Seems like so small.
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?Needs to be $499 for the base. I agree with you. BUT, did anyone notice they have a DDR333 ram description when it is really PC 5300 running @ 667MHz? What a screwup. :eek:
Omni via Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a pair of 1GB sticks for $174 instead of Apple's $225. Save $50 and have something to sell on eBay. - two 256 sticks. Wonder if anyone is buying those? Seems like so small.
Multimedia
Nov 15, 05:55 PM
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
Benguitar
Nov 23, 02:42 PM
Small Pelican case for my Oakley Glasses, (as seen on the last page of the XIV Purchases Thread)
Have room for another pair too, Maybe I'll find another pair that I like in the future.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_1-3.jpg
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_2-1.jpg
:)
Have room for another pair too, Maybe I'll find another pair that I like in the future.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_1-3.jpg
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_2-1.jpg
:)
BenRoethig
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
I would like to see a "media center" with a basic built-in TV-tuner so I could use it as a TIVO. It cant be that hard to add a TV-tuner...
I'm thinking something similar. 3.5x8.5x8.5. Basically a larger MacMini with a 3.5" hard drive, dedicated graphics, and video chipset similar to the Miglia TV Max.
I'm thinking something similar. 3.5x8.5x8.5. Basically a larger MacMini with a 3.5" hard drive, dedicated graphics, and video chipset similar to the Miglia TV Max.
prodigee
Feb 27, 06:23 PM
I had just gotten off the phone, so there were a bunch of oils and what not on there haha. But yeah I did clean it afterward. Just didn't care enough to for the picture hah.
Eraserhead
Mar 20, 05:55 PM
Homeopathy does at least have the placebo effect.
cube
Mar 25, 11:40 AM
Because the Sandy Bridge IGP was not designed to do any sort of GPGPU work, point blank. We will have to wait for Ivy Bridge(next major release from Intel after Sandy Bridge) for GPGPU/OpenCL support on Intel's IGP.
The SB documentation says it supports Compute Shader 4, a subset of the DirectX 11 level Compute Shader 5.
What that means in terms of OpenCL, I don't know.
Intel said they'll continue to evaluate OpenCL during 2011.
The SB documentation says it supports Compute Shader 4, a subset of the DirectX 11 level Compute Shader 5.
What that means in terms of OpenCL, I don't know.
Intel said they'll continue to evaluate OpenCL during 2011.
Rocketman
Nov 30, 10:14 AM
I was not aware of that, but breaking the agreement with Apple records not to get into the music distribution business has worked out for them I think.
It's funny, the first hifi company I thought of for an Apple HT product was Mcintosh, the complete opposite design asthetic. If I could choose I would prefer someone a little further down the price scale. Rotel would be a nice match, very good performance for the money, for speakers Paradigm comes to mind.
The text of that agreement was posted in a lawsuit thread. Apple Computer is precluded from "producing" music not distributing it. The recent claim by Apple Records was bogus and properly denied.
So does anyone know the current business status of Mc Intosh?
McIntoshAudio.com link (http://www.mcintoshaudio.com)
Rocketman
It's funny, the first hifi company I thought of for an Apple HT product was Mcintosh, the complete opposite design asthetic. If I could choose I would prefer someone a little further down the price scale. Rotel would be a nice match, very good performance for the money, for speakers Paradigm comes to mind.
The text of that agreement was posted in a lawsuit thread. Apple Computer is precluded from "producing" music not distributing it. The recent claim by Apple Records was bogus and properly denied.
So does anyone know the current business status of Mc Intosh?
McIntoshAudio.com link (http://www.mcintoshaudio.com)
Rocketman
MrFirework
Nov 15, 10:25 AM
How long before it ends up in the MacBook Pro?
(joking)
Thank GOD that "joking" is in there.
::to myself:: calm... calm... 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1.... calm...
(joking)
Thank GOD that "joking" is in there.
::to myself:: calm... calm... 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1.... calm...
Nugget
Jan 1, 05:20 PM
Sounds like the keynote will either be really boring or really surprising.
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 06:53 PM
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
I'm not the one being quick to shout privacy invasion, it was on every tv news channel and news site. Somebody thinks it's a big deal. Now Apple brass is in damage control mode and must come up with some type of answer to appease the public.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
I'm not the one being quick to shout privacy invasion, it was on every tv news channel and news site. Somebody thinks it's a big deal. Now Apple brass is in damage control mode and must come up with some type of answer to appease the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment