catracho
Mar 24, 08:27 PM
Do you think that the support of these 5xxxx cards could mean the return of the 24" iMac?
Too many cards for only 2 models (21" and 27")....
Too many cards for only 2 models (21" and 27")....
OllyW
Apr 10, 11:20 AM
I do and have been the last 10 years
Helped learning to ride a motorcycle also
I remember getting into an auto and mistook the brake for the clutch one time
I used to get confused riding old British motorbikes. I'd often knock it down a gear or two instead of finding the rear brake. :o
Helped learning to ride a motorcycle also
I remember getting into an auto and mistook the brake for the clutch one time
I used to get confused riding old British motorbikes. I'd often knock it down a gear or two instead of finding the rear brake. :o
Herdfan
Apr 19, 04:08 PM
i wish they could wait and roll out the new imacs w/ Lion in June. im trying to hold out...its hard...lol
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
Actually glad they aren't. Then I can get the new iMac and upgrade to Lion when I'm/it's ready.
calcvita
May 3, 03:46 AM
apple needs to do something about this whole uninstallation process. apps like appcleaner exist and they do exist for a very good reason. if i uninstall an app, i want it to completely be gone.
and what if you have a corrupted .plist file which causes the application to misbehave? by simply drag & drop the app into the trashcan leaves its associated files untouched and re-installing the app won't fix the problem.
on many troubleshooting guides a very common suggestion is to remove the preference file, located in the user (in most cases) library folder, but in lion this folder is hidden and if you ask me, this will confuse newbies even more. i'm sure there will be comments like "but i don't have a library folder" and so on.
and what if you have a corrupted .plist file which causes the application to misbehave? by simply drag & drop the app into the trashcan leaves its associated files untouched and re-installing the app won't fix the problem.
on many troubleshooting guides a very common suggestion is to remove the preference file, located in the user (in most cases) library folder, but in lion this folder is hidden and if you ask me, this will confuse newbies even more. i'm sure there will be comments like "but i don't have a library folder" and so on.
weespeed
Apr 26, 07:57 PM
Not "debunked." More like "skirted."
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
It's already been done.
OpenOffice
Nonsense. I dare you to develop and release a word processing application for Windows called "Mattie Num Nums Word" and see how long it takes before Ballmer is on the phone with you.
Google Word? Apple Word? These would never fly and you know it. Your argument holds no water.
It's already been done.
OpenOffice
Bodypainter
May 3, 04:03 AM
oh guys, don't you understand what is going on here?
the iPhone and iPad is very sucessful therefore apple wants to bring all the user interface elements to the Mac too. and this actually makes sense. the only problem: we are used to the Mac os and don't want to give up our habits.
but there is no way around: it's time to melt iOS and Mac OS x. and apple is going to bring so many things to the os x that will confuse so many people. they have to solve so many problems like deletion of programs or the fullscreen dilemma.
I am very sure that they want the Mac os to behave like iOS. but iOS is based on the home screen and this terrible multitasking bar (double-click on home button) no trashcan (oho!) and no finder.
but there is also a good side to it. maybe the iOS is getting the "widget screen" too, because if apple is totally logical, the have to introduce this too (and mission control).
(written on an iPad)
the iPhone and iPad is very sucessful therefore apple wants to bring all the user interface elements to the Mac too. and this actually makes sense. the only problem: we are used to the Mac os and don't want to give up our habits.
but there is no way around: it's time to melt iOS and Mac OS x. and apple is going to bring so many things to the os x that will confuse so many people. they have to solve so many problems like deletion of programs or the fullscreen dilemma.
I am very sure that they want the Mac os to behave like iOS. but iOS is based on the home screen and this terrible multitasking bar (double-click on home button) no trashcan (oho!) and no finder.
but there is also a good side to it. maybe the iOS is getting the "widget screen" too, because if apple is totally logical, the have to introduce this too (and mission control).
(written on an iPad)
Eidorian
Aug 25, 11:54 AM
Every single one of those (except perhaps home theater) would be much better suited with a cheaper VIA mini-ITX system running Linux. The only reason you should ever choose Mac OS X over Linux is in *visible* setups, not *invisible* setups.Sadly, I've tried to make cheaper VIA based mini-ITX systems. I usually end up getting a better buy from a Mac Mini.
kiljoy616
Mar 26, 01:45 AM
Looks better than any racing sim on the Wii.
I was looking at the Wii we have at home and thinking the same thing. Apple has been late to the gaming but I wonder how long before appletv 2 or 3 are also a game system.:rolleyes:
I was looking at the Wii we have at home and thinking the same thing. Apple has been late to the gaming but I wonder how long before appletv 2 or 3 are also a game system.:rolleyes:
ipadder
Oct 24, 01:08 PM
hello everyone..i have bought a new ipod touch and i want a case to cover it and to provide protection from scratches.please can anyone suggest me.
How much do you want to spend?
How much do you want to spend?
mac-er
Jul 20, 08:19 AM
"We're not sitting around doing nothing," Apple said about the prospect that mobile phones may soon emerge as very capable digital music players and challenge the iPod.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
captmatt
Mar 25, 03:56 PM
Oh man---I got the iPad to get the kids off the TV. Now I'm going to have to get another TV!
gugy
Sep 1, 12:47 PM
23" Imac is a great size. Add HD resolution then that's great.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 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.
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.
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, 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.
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. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
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.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Nuvi
Apr 13, 01:52 AM
I love the fact that Apple has adopted the iMovie UI for FCP X. That makes the transition from iMovie to FCP X that much easier
You make your living editing film or video? Didn't think so...
--
Too bad they didn't mention anything about rest of the FCS apps, nothing about volume licensing, other delivery methods then App Store, upgrade pricing from FCS.
You make your living editing film or video? Didn't think so...
--
Too bad they didn't mention anything about rest of the FCS apps, nothing about volume licensing, other delivery methods then App Store, upgrade pricing from FCS.
freeny
Jul 19, 04:37 PM
stocks up 7.45% in after hours.....:)
lordonuthin
Mar 5, 06:32 PM
And congrats for 10mio points!
Thanks
congrats to whiterabbit for 10 million points!
And Thanks
I should be picking up steam again, soon.
Thanks
congrats to whiterabbit for 10 million points!
And Thanks
I should be picking up steam again, soon.
cube
Mar 24, 02:04 PM
There are few PCIe lanes in Thunderbolt. You cannot do heavy graphics.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 03:16 PM
I'd rather have a CPU that is a bit slower for non-OpenCL tasks, than a computer that is faster at that but is unusable for other things because it doesn't have OpenCL.
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
Tad slower? If history repeats itself Intel's CPU will completely destroy AMD's offering. It won't be a bit slower, it will be a lot slower. Tell me when OpenCL suddenly becomes a requirement. Enjoy your vaporware bro. I'm sure your Llano machine will outperform Sandy Bridge in a few years when applications actually use the technology. Assuming said Sandy Bridge machine doesn't have discrete graphics. I'd love to know these apps you are using by the way and what your career is. If you are so serious about OpenCL then you shouldn't be purchasing a machine with an IGP to begin with.
Also I had a good chuckle at this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12048219
"The future is fusion"
So you are a spokesperson for AMD?
kadajawi
Sep 7, 03:36 AM
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Yes, I was about to build one with a Athlon 64 3000+ (doesn't eat up electricity like the P4... and with RM Clock or so you can reduce power consumption quite a bit additionally. The default voltages are usually far above whats needed, both AMDs I've built run perfectly with 1.1V (standard is 1.4 to 1.45), unfortunately it isn't possible to lover the voltage further), 512 MB RAM, 160 GB HD, onboard graphics, DVDR, in a 9x27.5x35 cm enclosure. Price with Windows: around 400 �. Bluetooth and WiFi is lacking, but shouldn't add too much. In comparison the Mac Mini Core Solo was 600 � at that time. I'd consider both systems comparable... Mini has front row, BT and WiFi, PC has better connectivity (especially on the display side), 100 gig more HD, DVD writer, card reader. Quite a price difference to me.
Lack of OS X + iLife, the upgrade to Core Duo, student discount and the printer promo made me chose the Mac Mini.
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:52 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
It is in check with the competition...
Perhaps you don't know who Apple's competition is?
Maybe Apple should bring it's laptop line down to the $300 cheapo Dell level while we're at it :rolleyes:
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
It is in check with the competition...
Perhaps you don't know who Apple's competition is?
Maybe Apple should bring it's laptop line down to the $300 cheapo Dell level while we're at it :rolleyes:
BillyShears
Jan 11, 10:12 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.
Would be interesting. You have your "docking station", complete with super drive, hooked up to your external monitor and keyboard/mouse. So you only have to put your MacBook Air in the vicinity of the docking station (say, sit it on the table), and it switches over.
The problems I see are:
I still call BS though.
Would be interesting. You have your "docking station", complete with super drive, hooked up to your external monitor and keyboard/mouse. So you only have to put your MacBook Air in the vicinity of the docking station (say, sit it on the table), and it switches over.
The problems I see are:
matrix07
Apr 3, 02:29 AM
You can pinch to zoom on video now? How?
Classy ad btw.
Classy ad btw.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 06:31 PM
I'll Have To See It To Believe It. I can't believe the quality will compare with a physical DVD. :eek:
SactoGuy18
Nov 29, 10:14 PM
Folks,
The reason why the Zune sells poorly comes down to these factors:
1) The software to interface with the Zune leaves much to be desired in terms of ease of use. Every reviewer expresses concern about the unneccessary complications of the Zune software copying media files to the player.
2) Microsoft blew it by going to a new digital rights management system, one totally different than the DRM system used in conjunction with Windows Media Player 10/11 with its Play for Sure initiative.
Technically, while the Zune is larger than it needs to be, most reviewers do laud the interface on the player itself. I think once Microsoft improves the interface software for the Zune acceptance of the device will climb dramatically. After all, when Apple started selling iPods for Windows users it didn't become really popular until the iPod switched to the USB 2.0 connection and iTunes became available in a Windows version.
The reason why the Zune sells poorly comes down to these factors:
1) The software to interface with the Zune leaves much to be desired in terms of ease of use. Every reviewer expresses concern about the unneccessary complications of the Zune software copying media files to the player.
2) Microsoft blew it by going to a new digital rights management system, one totally different than the DRM system used in conjunction with Windows Media Player 10/11 with its Play for Sure initiative.
Technically, while the Zune is larger than it needs to be, most reviewers do laud the interface on the player itself. I think once Microsoft improves the interface software for the Zune acceptance of the device will climb dramatically. After all, when Apple started selling iPods for Windows users it didn't become really popular until the iPod switched to the USB 2.0 connection and iTunes became available in a Windows version.