DMann
Jan 11, 06:47 PM
I don't think we are even close in either of these threads. I suspect that 10.5.2 and/or the iPhone SDK are going to contain some huge surprises. Perhaps included in that are some of the Leopard "secret features" that were promised a year ago but took more time than expected.
Now, this would be fabulous!
Now, this would be fabulous!
BLUELION
Apr 3, 01:42 PM
Apple is not trying to rub it in your face to other companies, but more important it is using the subtle nuance of the product as it targets partners into coming on board with the iPad, iPad2.
I actually think this isn't apples best ad. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, but I usually expect more from apple.
They better make another ipad 2 ad, because this is there only one
I actually think this isn't apples best ad. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, but I usually expect more from apple.
They better make another ipad 2 ad, because this is there only one
apb3
Aug 16, 01:23 PM
It wouldn't necessarily require ANY extra DRM, they'd just build it in to the update of the ipod and itunes software. Buy a song directly on the iPod, it only gets transferred to computers with your itunes shopping account. That's pretty much how it works already.
Build what into the update?? more Digital rights management... And we go back to Apple's one-way iTunes to iPod transfer selling point to music labels. Once the floodgates to two-way transfer are opened officially, bye bye contracts with major lables and forget about movies.
Build what into the update?? more Digital rights management... And we go back to Apple's one-way iTunes to iPod transfer selling point to music labels. Once the floodgates to two-way transfer are opened officially, bye bye contracts with major lables and forget about movies.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
PlipPlop
Mar 25, 09:02 AM
Just realised I was being stupid yesterday.
I forgot about the Mac Pro's
when it said ATI 6970 I thought, Yay, finally an iMac that normal people will buy will be fitted into an iMac and make it a worthy competitor to a good spec PC.
Then it dawned on me, I'm stupid and probably none of the upper end models will find their way into iMac's will they? :(
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
I forgot about the Mac Pro's
when it said ATI 6970 I thought, Yay, finally an iMac that normal people will buy will be fitted into an iMac and make it a worthy competitor to a good spec PC.
Then it dawned on me, I'm stupid and probably none of the upper end models will find their way into iMac's will they? :(
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
Kirbdog
Jan 1, 09:29 PM
I am hoping that movies and TV shows get offered outside the US on the iTunes store. Steve mentioned that this would be happening in 2007 when he previewed the iTV box. I think many would like to see this sooner than later.
A true video iPod would really compliment this announcement:D :D
A true video iPod would really compliment this announcement:D :D
steadysignal
Apr 10, 07:04 PM
manual cars are easy to drive - like riding a bike, you never forget it...
javabear90
Mar 18, 10:20 PM
hmmm...... this is a head scratcher....
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:08 PM
(Emphasis added.)
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
I reiterate my suggestion you take advantage of the educational opportunities available to you. Your nascent reasoning ability might benefit. ;)
Got to love auto spell check. Nuisance sorry.
OwlsAndApples
Nov 27, 01:10 PM
Or get an iMac...:p
Doraemon
Mar 18, 09:35 AM
I didn't sign either.
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
Dont Hurt Me
Aug 31, 07:18 AM
Mini is just fine all it needs is a better graphics chip, its what really holds this machine down in my view and yes I own 1.
Porchland
Sep 8, 03:51 PM
This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
Stella
Jul 18, 06:38 AM
Waste of time. Two reasons:
- Several hours of downloads
- Available in the states only
Apple still haven't rolled out videos to the rest of the world yet ( for what ever reason , i.e., licensing. Apple seem to be dragging their heels regarding getting licenses. It shouldn't take this long ).
- Several hours of downloads
- Available in the states only
Apple still haven't rolled out videos to the rest of the world yet ( for what ever reason , i.e., licensing. Apple seem to be dragging their heels regarding getting licenses. It shouldn't take this long ).
bretm
Sep 7, 10:16 AM
Netflix is made for movies! I love Apple but they'll never do for movies what Netflix has! In the past 5 weeks, I've had 21 movies delivered to my door. I'm on the 3-at-a-time plan (unlimited for $17.99/mo). Also, I can buy tons of used DVDs for $5.99 that are 100% guaranteed!
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
I think a dollar a song is one thing because you can pick and choose from an album so the trade-off for quality is justified. However, $9.99 is a lot to ask for something that is very low quality, only looks really good an a 2" screen and takes a long time to download. Right now, we don't even know if you can back the file up or burn to a DVD. I think Apple will do ok, but I don't see it being the same bonanza that that music was/is.
Netflix will slow down your service most likely. You'll start to see online that the movies you've sent back haven't quite cleared yet and that movies being sent out start to slow down.
Unless things have changed recently. But that's what they've done in the past.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Choppaface
Oct 23, 11:28 PM
I've got a dual 2.33ghz Core 2 Duo in my mac mini and its FASTTTTT the new mbps will be nice BUY BUY BUY
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
Willis
Aug 6, 09:08 PM
Haha, I love the digs at Vista. Vista's been getting so much bad press recently this is fantastic. They should simply have this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QdGt3ix2CQ) video on repeat on screens throughout the event!!
hahah i was just watching that. but it was the shorter version.
hahah i was just watching that. but it was the shorter version.
boncellis
Sep 6, 09:41 AM
Except that doesn't take into account the superdrive and hard drive. It's more like a $100 price drop.
Ah, you're right, I missed the Superdrive change. Nice catch. I've never paid mind to the HDD inasmuch as it almost begs for a high-capacity external drive anyway, in my opinion.
Ah, you're right, I missed the Superdrive change. Nice catch. I've never paid mind to the HDD inasmuch as it almost begs for a high-capacity external drive anyway, in my opinion.
epitaphic
Aug 25, 07:33 AM
A mini for the well educated, performance orientated computer user
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 01:09 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
That is a good question.
I have a huge issue with how it is done and the fact that you can not opt out of it. On top of that Apple has piss poor protection of the file and Apple history at security is not exactly the best.
There should be a way to opt out. But collecting them with out my choice is an issue.
I trust Google a hell of a lot more with the info and being more up front about it then Apple and I do not trust Google that much.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
That is a good question.
I have a huge issue with how it is done and the fact that you can not opt out of it. On top of that Apple has piss poor protection of the file and Apple history at security is not exactly the best.
There should be a way to opt out. But collecting them with out my choice is an issue.
I trust Google a hell of a lot more with the info and being more up front about it then Apple and I do not trust Google that much.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
ju5tin81
Oct 23, 03:21 PM
How exactly is Apple making a big deal out of small updates? The recent processor updates Apple has done (Core Duo to Core 2 Duo on the iMac and the speedbumped Core Duos on the MBP earlier this year) were quiet launches, with no announcements or hoopla at all really. The only real hoopla with the iMac was about the 24" screen, but it was certainly subdued. Hell, Apple made a bigger deal out of the Apple Hi-Fi.
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
Lets not also forget that the MacBook just appeared one day! A 'whole' Tuesday before the rumour sites thought it would. :rolleyes:
(With minimal fanfare)
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
Lets not also forget that the MacBook just appeared one day! A 'whole' Tuesday before the rumour sites thought it would. :rolleyes:
(With minimal fanfare)
andrew.gw
Apr 3, 03:39 AM
False. DP 2 can install directly to a blank drive/partitlon.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
Agreed. I installed both Developer Previews on a clean drive � you just have to burn them to a DVD.
No comments:
Post a Comment