boncellis
Sep 6, 09:34 AM
My first instinct was that Apple stuck with Yonah in the Mini because of something they're about to introduce next week. The "streaming video" device could very well fill the set-top box niche that the Mini does, only at a lower price for the same remote media functions.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
I was wondering which way it would go--I guess it's still up in the air. Basically I just see this as a $200 price drop, which is always welcome.
RayLancer
Sep 30, 03:40 PM
did u get that weird watermarks like on wolfboy's post a few posts up?
I don't have the cases on me, I just got it this morning before heading to work. I'll be sure to post back. The cases are cheap for $4 each and I'm planning on replacing them at some point soon.
I don't have the cases on me, I just got it this morning before heading to work. I'll be sure to post back. The cases are cheap for $4 each and I'm planning on replacing them at some point soon.
Dunepilot
Nov 15, 08:25 AM
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:49 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
And what, exactly, is your point? Really, did you read the thread? Okay, mb not, did you read anything that I wrote? No? Did you follow the linked thread that has been used as a counter point to the FUD that is spread? No?
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
Bad apple for not offering a $400 laptop, that pressures me into getting a Dell! Bad apple for not offering me a fast car, that pressures me into buying a BMW!!
I'm sorry, but your conclusions are horrible. You aren't looking at all the "facts", and then with the few you are using (out of context) you are drawing very stretched conclusions.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck,
No, but we have little reason to believe that they aren't selling well enough, and good reason to believe they are. Why? Because if they weren't selling well, and they were highly marked up, than it wouldn't hurt apple to lower the price, and sell more units. But they haven't yet done that. So either Apple's marketing guys are complete idiots and missed business 101, or they are selling enough units to justify the price.
but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
A very interesting theory, that seems plausible. However what is more likely is that Apple is selling enough units, and that they aren't overly priced for their intended purpose and intended competition (which is NOT Dell).
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program.
News flash, any monitor on the market today will work with your Mac. I know, it's amazing. Buy a cheap monitor and slap an Apple sticker on it if you like. Or go complain that NEC is limiting your choice by not offering a monitor in your price range, or that BMW is screwing you out of a car by not offering a car at 10 grand.
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
They might do it, but it won't be a prosumer level monitor like the rest. It will use a cheaper panel so that it's in line with it's target audience (consumer budget mini buyers). There aren't many companies, if any, that sell pro specced monitors at 17" any more. And as those better panels become cheaper, there is even less reason to offer the pro guys such small screen space.
Now, would you please, for the love of knowledge, go read the first post in this thread before making another reply. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
Thank you,
~Tyler
jaikob
Apr 21, 11:37 AM
Does anyone else really just not care about this? I could care less. It's not like the info is going to end up in China.
St0rMl0rD
Nov 28, 03:52 PM
Just ordered some Affliction and BCK stuff from U.S.!
Affliction Spear T-Shirt - 26 EUR
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A655_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569831575443.jpg
Affliction Scripture T-Shirt - 54 EUR
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A1781_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569831985518.jpg
Got this Affliction shirt for free as their bonus:
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A4097_VWH_dt_v1_m56577569832272552.jpg
And two BCK bracelets:
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/3503058149_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569832141249.jpg
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/3503057186_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569832038049.jpg
Affliction Spear T-Shirt - 26 EUR
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A655_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569831575443.jpg
Affliction Scripture T-Shirt - 54 EUR
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A1781_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569831985518.jpg
Got this Affliction shirt for free as their bonus:
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/10400A4097_VWH_dt_v1_m56577569832272552.jpg
And two BCK bracelets:
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/3503058149_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569832141249.jpg
http://www.buckle.com/media/images/products/dt/3503057186_BLK_dt_v1_m56577569832038049.jpg
Full of Win
Mar 22, 05:20 PM
Just curious, Why?
1. Bluetooth car audio systems
2. Bluetooth headphones
3. Bluetooth speakers.
The iPod is primarly an audio device, Bluetooth is a common audio transmission method. What more is there to say?
1. Bluetooth car audio systems
2. Bluetooth headphones
3. Bluetooth speakers.
The iPod is primarly an audio device, Bluetooth is a common audio transmission method. What more is there to say?
jrbdmb
Apr 19, 03:33 PM
I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
Full of Win
Mar 24, 01:19 PM
I wonder if this may imply the coming of that unicorn rider we all know and love, the 'headless mac" (aka xMac).
Removable drives, no screen, more powerful than an iMac, 1499.99.
Removable drives, no screen, more powerful than an iMac, 1499.99.
GeekOFComedy
Jun 23, 12:09 AM
Current Mac computers running on Intel Chipset, Running OS X then dashboard with emulating Apple A4 Processor. As all macs nearly have 4GB of ram 512MB taken out for dashboard isn't bad when you quit said dashboard it stops emulating A4 and 512MB The iMac can be touchscreen. The Other macs can operate iOS4 with it's either mouse or remember the rumor for the trackpad media device. They could operate iOS4 on Mac minis and Mac Pros with that device and for the MacBooks operate it on the magic trackpad
NYY FaN
Feb 26, 02:03 PM
27" iMac
17" MacBook Pro
iPad 16GB
iPhone 4 16GB
Logitech Z-2300
Time Capsule 1TB
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5318184444_0d940da490_b.jpg
17" MacBook Pro
iPad 16GB
iPhone 4 16GB
Logitech Z-2300
Time Capsule 1TB
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5048/5318184444_0d940da490_b.jpg
bommai
Nov 30, 12:02 AM
I think iTV will have the feature of showing your Keynote presentations right right there, how easy and cool would that be. Never have to sit at a Mac again to show that presentation, just a few click by with the Apple remote. By the way I am surprised I never heard of this on the internet, it just seems logical to me to be added as a feature.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
The hard drive is most likely for caching large media files, whether locally or from the internet so that when the user does a rewind or fast forward, the hard drive cache can be used. Flash memory can be used also but it would be better with a hard drive since there is a lot of data and hard drive is still cheaper and also more robust for multiple writes.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
The hard drive is most likely for caching large media files, whether locally or from the internet so that when the user does a rewind or fast forward, the hard drive cache can be used. Flash memory can be used also but it would be better with a hard drive since there is a lot of data and hard drive is still cheaper and also more robust for multiple writes.
Stewie
Sep 7, 02:15 PM
Sorry for the nasty long URL (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9OrBsXYjfxgJ:www.amazon.com/b/%3Fie%3DUTF8%26node%3D16263011+unbox+site:amazon.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a), but this is a cache page from a google search where you can see what Amazons offerings our for their new download service.
BenRoethig
Nov 27, 04:58 PM
Do you think such a display would sport a pwning! S-IPS panel as the other Cinema Displays, or would it be throttled down to a Dell style S-PVA panel?:D
I willy, willy hope for:
17" (1680x1050), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 600:1, iSight, 400 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $399.
20" (1920x1200), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $699.
24" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $999.
30" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $1999.
:D :D :D
Only the most hardcore Mac user would pay those prices. The 17" and 20" models are twice the price of their rivals.
I willy, willy hope for:
17" (1680x1050), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 600:1, iSight, 400 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $399.
20" (1920x1200), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 2xFireWire400 - $699.
24" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $999.
30" (some res. I can't remember), S-IPS panel, 12 ms, DVI, 700:1, iSight, 500 cd/m2, alu. case, 2xUSB 2.0, 1xFireWire400, 1xFireWire 800 - $1999.
:D :D :D
Only the most hardcore Mac user would pay those prices. The 17" and 20" models are twice the price of their rivals.
SamEllens
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
The variety of source formats is going to continue to expand. Sure, some common standards emerge, such as hard drives and flash media, but just because in the past there was only one origination and one output format doesn't mean that this is the way the process has to work, or is somehow intrinsically superior.
By source and output I'm pretty sure he's referring to what you call the Preview/Canvas monitors in FCP, or Source/Record in AVID.
By source and output I'm pretty sure he's referring to what you call the Preview/Canvas monitors in FCP, or Source/Record in AVID.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 6, 02:23 PM
Why do Americans harbor hate for diesel? I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
notjustjay
Mar 25, 03:55 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
There's still the practical limitations of using a touchscreen as a control device, though. It's never going to be as tactile as a controller with buttons and joysticks. Not to mention having the HDMI adaptor sticking out of the side of the iPad while you're holding it to play games...
Apart from that, I'm glad to see the iPad is able to hold its own as a gaming machine.
Vision, people. Vision.
There's still the practical limitations of using a touchscreen as a control device, though. It's never going to be as tactile as a controller with buttons and joysticks. Not to mention having the HDMI adaptor sticking out of the side of the iPad while you're holding it to play games...
Apart from that, I'm glad to see the iPad is able to hold its own as a gaming machine.
appleguy123
Mar 19, 04:57 PM
They could at least make the app more interesting.
How about a social feature that allows you to see other 'ex-homosexuals' in your area? :D
How about a social feature that allows you to see other 'ex-homosexuals' in your area? :D
4np
Sep 6, 08:46 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:51 PM
While I write this there are 176 posts already.
Since initially posted (3 hours ago), there have been an average .9 posts per minute with no signs of slowing. This rumor is really keeping everyone here quite entertained. Cheers to slacking off at work on a Friday!
edit: corrected "off"
Since initially posted (3 hours ago), there have been an average .9 posts per minute with no signs of slowing. This rumor is really keeping everyone here quite entertained. Cheers to slacking off at work on a Friday!
edit: corrected "off"
dethmaShine
May 2, 05:24 PM
If you click on Show Content on any app and replace the first three files from an app downloaded from the app store it will happen with any app you want.
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
Im on DP 2 Update 3. This un-installation process applies to all external apps, not just MAS apps. No code, no change required. :)
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
Im on DP 2 Update 3. This un-installation process applies to all external apps, not just MAS apps. No code, no change required. :)
Chadder
Mar 24, 05:12 PM
So has anyone stuck a 6970 in a mac pro yet?
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
PS for the people who don't know apple does not support Crossfire or SLI in mac os x so the 6990 which is a dual GPU on a single card solution will not and can not be supported until they change how osx works.
Stridder44
Sep 7, 04:17 AM
Holy eff. What if they changed iMovie's purpose? For managing content (music & movies): iTunes and iMovie. For creating/editing content: Garageband and "Showtime" (or whatever speculated new name that was).
It makes so much more sense, even if it would be confusing at first.
It makes so much more sense, even if it would be confusing at first.