Schizoid
Apr 21, 11:33 AM
Is Al Frankin running for president again? :rolleyes:
no, all politicians wave the "privacy" banner... they don't want their employers (i.e. you and me) to know where they've been.
no, all politicians wave the "privacy" banner... they don't want their employers (i.e. you and me) to know where they've been.
jake4ever
Apr 1, 09:29 PM
Google Chrome Beta and regular version allow me to use them for around a minute, and then crash. Anyone else having this problem, and how to fix?
I already submitted a bug report.
I already submitted a bug report.
Coolestdude
Mar 22, 04:43 PM
I would really like to see WIFI sync. Pull my car in the garage, download my new songs in iTunes, and it syncs. I use a USA Spec iPod adapter in my car, and keep the iPod hidden in the glovebox.
hyperpasta
Sep 1, 02:37 PM
Mac Mini - low end machine good for offices as a small server or low end word processing workstation.
iMac - All in one consumer machine - no upgradeability
"Mac" - Prosumer gamer machine - some upgradeablity
Mac Pro - Full fledged workstation for those who need all the power they can get.
But I want to see the iMac and "Mac" be equal in power- both available in both consumer to presumer configurations! I also want the Mac mini done away with and replaced with the "Mac" you speak of... it's too small for its own good. The G4 cube should be brought back, this time as a consumer/prosumer machine, replacing the Mac mini.
Basically, Apple needs to snap out of it and realize that there is a market for a headless and integrated machines at EVERY PRICE... I want a prosumer iMac, personally.
iMac - All in one consumer machine - no upgradeability
"Mac" - Prosumer gamer machine - some upgradeablity
Mac Pro - Full fledged workstation for those who need all the power they can get.
But I want to see the iMac and "Mac" be equal in power- both available in both consumer to presumer configurations! I also want the Mac mini done away with and replaced with the "Mac" you speak of... it's too small for its own good. The G4 cube should be brought back, this time as a consumer/prosumer machine, replacing the Mac mini.
Basically, Apple needs to snap out of it and realize that there is a market for a headless and integrated machines at EVERY PRICE... I want a prosumer iMac, personally.
Multimedia
Nov 15, 05:43 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?Maybe. If Apple goes from the 80 Watt 3GHz Woody to the 120 Watt 2.66GHz Clovertown then definitely. But if Apple chooses to only offer the 80 Watt 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown, then perhaps not and we'll all be happier campers. Or perhaps Apple has other cooling schemes in mind to keep a 2.66GHz set of Clovertowns quiet via other ways. Given that the Logic board stays the same, I'd rather buy the 2.33GHz version.
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?Maybe. If Apple goes from the 80 Watt 3GHz Woody to the 120 Watt 2.66GHz Clovertown then definitely. But if Apple chooses to only offer the 80 Watt 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown, then perhaps not and we'll all be happier campers. Or perhaps Apple has other cooling schemes in mind to keep a 2.66GHz set of Clovertowns quiet via other ways. Given that the Logic board stays the same, I'd rather buy the 2.33GHz version.
MacVault
Aug 7, 06:25 AM
I'm hoping that Leopard is more of an increment than the last couple of OS X releases were. I'd still rather use Tiger than any other OS, but Apple really needs to address its UI inconsistencies and usability issues. For example, I think that printing and font management in OS X are much more complicated than they need to be...
In addition to printing and font management, how bout adding to the list networking access. The way one accesses networks in Windows seems much more straight forward, consistent, clean and intuitive in Windows XP than it does in OS X. That's my oppinion anyway. Maybe that's just me. Anyone else agree???
In addition to printing and font management, how bout adding to the list networking access. The way one accesses networks in Windows seems much more straight forward, consistent, clean and intuitive in Windows XP than it does in OS X. That's my oppinion anyway. Maybe that's just me. Anyone else agree???
aafuss1
Aug 7, 06:54 AM
[B]Leopard
-Native NTFS write
-Soltaire game as a dashboard widget
-PC-run Mac OS X, but only via virtualization
-Tabs in Finder and Safari be draggable, Dragon Drop style tabbed windows-like OS 9, and be easily recalled-bookmarks.
-Native NTFS write
-Soltaire game as a dashboard widget
-PC-run Mac OS X, but only via virtualization
-Tabs in Finder and Safari be draggable, Dragon Drop style tabbed windows-like OS 9, and be easily recalled-bookmarks.
thisisahughes
Mar 26, 04:39 AM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
I hope too.
I hope too.
MacMan86
Apr 21, 11:23 AM
Once sent to Apple, it should be removed from the phone though, which is not happening right now according to reports. This is wrong. The problem isn't the feature per say, it's the persistence of this database and it's very accurate, low-resolution.
Reports are the file isn't sent to Apple, it doesn't leave the iPhone/iTunes backup. It exists to cache the location of nearby cell towers to provide a rough location in an area with no GPS or data connection. If it wasn't persistent, it would be pointless
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
Reports are the file isn't sent to Apple, it doesn't leave the iPhone/iTunes backup. It exists to cache the location of nearby cell towers to provide a rough location in an area with no GPS or data connection. If it wasn't persistent, it would be pointless
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
kadajawi
Sep 6, 08:29 PM
What planet are you on?
Planet Germany ;) The not so expensive part of it though (other Germans are quite surprised too). Macs are pretty expensive here though, IMHO. And there isn't a single store you can get Macs... in a town with 200000 people or so. Oh well...
Planet Germany ;) The not so expensive part of it though (other Germans are quite surprised too). Macs are pretty expensive here though, IMHO. And there isn't a single store you can get Macs... in a town with 200000 people or so. Oh well...
BJB Productions
Apr 12, 10:09 PM
...and what about the rest of the Pro apps? Just wondering.
DeSnousa
Apr 14, 02:26 AM
:eek: That much, what are modern computers pumping out these days! What would be producing the most points per day? I'm thinking about buying a graphics card just to fold on if that is the case :D
Also how do you find the GPU I have had to limit mine down to 70% as I find it interferes with the effects that Windows 7 does.
Also how do you find the GPU I have had to limit mine down to 70% as I find it interferes with the effects that Windows 7 does.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 12:25 PM
I know this is off topic...
yes it is, and you already entioned it another discussion. and there is aready a dedicated discussion about it. so why spam this thread?
yes it is, and you already entioned it another discussion. and there is aready a dedicated discussion about it. so why spam this thread?
res1233
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
If I buy Aperture 3, 4, and 5 on the app store I'll have spent $240.
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
If you could get permission to access the internet to register your mac app store with your account, it's possible that just transferring the app from another computer will be all you'll have to do to get it to work, and can be done with future purchased apps. Just a thought.
Didn't it used to be $300 for 1 version? What did the upgrades cost? I feel like I'll be way past 5 before I break even.
Yeah, our editing machines aren't even allowed to be on the internet.
Hopefully there's a way around this.
If you could get permission to access the internet to register your mac app store with your account, it's possible that just transferring the app from another computer will be all you'll have to do to get it to work, and can be done with future purchased apps. Just a thought.
logandzwon
Apr 21, 01:11 PM
Not being rude at all but please tell me. I really want to know specifics.
People with the correct forensic equipment can get data off the iphone without the passcode.
People with the correct forensic equipment can get data off the iphone without the passcode.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
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?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
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.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
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?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
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.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
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?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
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.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
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.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]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?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
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?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
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.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
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?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
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.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
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?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
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.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
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.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]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?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
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?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
MikeELL
Aug 18, 06:05 AM
Hi, here's an excited essay for you all!
You've read some talk about apple releasing the iPhone concurrently with the next gen iPod... I'm going to make a prediction (read: wish) of what I see as the ultimate convergance of all the rumours I've seen lately. If I'm right, I'll keep talking about it for quite a while :)
I predict that the "iPhone" is the next-gen-iPod. I think that apple will happily combine both devices if/when they could be satisfied that both sets of functionality were covered.
I forsee a (3G?) phone which is also the next gen ipod (has a none-touch screen over it's entire face). This timing would tie in well with Leopard's release timing. My reasoning is that if Leopard's rumored ability to call any Phone is true, why not speak of it at the wwdc06 keynote unless they had integration with a smart new phone that they hadn't released yet? (the tech itself isn't anything new)
I therefore think the iPhone (combined with iPod or not) has to come before Leopard's release.
It is the talk of wireless iPods which has made me think that iPod/iPhone will eventually be combined. If a combo device has bluetooth/wifi, it also means it can function seemlessly with front row - also not mentioned in wwdc06 keynote and begging for an update given Apple's obsession with Macs as media devices.
For the record, I'd also like to see something like elgato's eyetv incorporated into front row - record from tv and send to your phone/iPod while using the device as a remote control for tv - but that probably counts as a second wish.
Cheers,
MikeELL
You've read some talk about apple releasing the iPhone concurrently with the next gen iPod... I'm going to make a prediction (read: wish) of what I see as the ultimate convergance of all the rumours I've seen lately. If I'm right, I'll keep talking about it for quite a while :)
I predict that the "iPhone" is the next-gen-iPod. I think that apple will happily combine both devices if/when they could be satisfied that both sets of functionality were covered.
I forsee a (3G?) phone which is also the next gen ipod (has a none-touch screen over it's entire face). This timing would tie in well with Leopard's release timing. My reasoning is that if Leopard's rumored ability to call any Phone is true, why not speak of it at the wwdc06 keynote unless they had integration with a smart new phone that they hadn't released yet? (the tech itself isn't anything new)
I therefore think the iPhone (combined with iPod or not) has to come before Leopard's release.
It is the talk of wireless iPods which has made me think that iPod/iPhone will eventually be combined. If a combo device has bluetooth/wifi, it also means it can function seemlessly with front row - also not mentioned in wwdc06 keynote and begging for an update given Apple's obsession with Macs as media devices.
For the record, I'd also like to see something like elgato's eyetv incorporated into front row - record from tv and send to your phone/iPod while using the device as a remote control for tv - but that probably counts as a second wish.
Cheers,
MikeELL
admanimal
Mar 31, 12:16 AM
Can you only get one code per dev account? What if I want to install on multiple computers?
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
SactoGuy18
Jan 5, 09:58 AM
I saw the January 5, 2007 multipage flyer ad for Fry's Electronics and noticed that there are no ads for any Apple iPod model. This is VERY strange considering that previous Friday multipage flyer ads prominently include iPod models.
Makes you wonder is Apple going to do a "mid-cycle" refresh of the 5.5G iPod and 2G iPod nano, along with introducing the new "true" video iPod.
Makes you wonder is Apple going to do a "mid-cycle" refresh of the 5.5G iPod and 2G iPod nano, along with introducing the new "true" video iPod.
xterm
Jul 14, 09:21 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
daneoni
Jan 11, 09:04 PM
The only reason i can see it being called Air is because its all wireless....i.e. it connects to its Docking station wirelessly via Ultrawideband wireless USB (which would also connect the External Optical), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc
I still call BS though.
I still call BS though.
mkrishnan
Jan 1, 05:53 PM
Whatever happend to the thin macbook? That is all I wanted this year.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
apb3
Aug 16, 10:06 AM
This would entail an entire re-think on the part of apple and how the iPod is used. Now they do not want you to be able to transfer both ways between your iPod and your iTunes lib (you can but they don't want you to...).
If they were to add the ability to download on the fly, you'd need to sync both ways and that would HAVE to be a supported Apple way of using the iPod and iTunes. I've a feeling this might also upset the music companies as I'm sure the one-way sync was one feel-good/selling point for anti-piracy concerns.
For that reason (and the fact that I cannot remember digitimes ever being correct), I just don't see this unless the wireless is just to sync with your computer which makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis.
edit:
and making it basically an iPod w/ airtunes makes no sense as it would cannibalize the sales thereof.
If they were to add the ability to download on the fly, you'd need to sync both ways and that would HAVE to be a supported Apple way of using the iPod and iTunes. I've a feeling this might also upset the music companies as I'm sure the one-way sync was one feel-good/selling point for anti-piracy concerns.
For that reason (and the fact that I cannot remember digitimes ever being correct), I just don't see this unless the wireless is just to sync with your computer which makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis.
edit:
and making it basically an iPod w/ airtunes makes no sense as it would cannibalize the sales thereof.
mac4lifenyc
Apr 19, 11:23 AM
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.