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???
alfagta
Apr 1, 04:00 PM
Does Lion feel much faster and more stable? I mean it�s been like 5 or 6 weeks since DP1. They had plenty of time to eliminate bugs. I�m askin cause we don�t see too much new features expect redesigned iCal.
poppe
Sep 1, 12:43 PM
hopefully this 23 inch one adds something more than just a bigger screen....such as component RGB input which would allow me to hook my my xbox 360 to play. that would RULE.
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
I doubt this will ever happen until they come out with ACD that have component or composite.
I've heard alot of people ask about the 360 being hooked up to it, but what i've heard it wont work with out lagging. I wanted to hook up my gCube and soon to be Wii to my MBP with the elegato(or what ever its called) but all I heard was lag stories....
of course, that is unlikely.
does anyone actually know how to use iMac screen to play xbox 360?
I doubt this will ever happen until they come out with ACD that have component or composite.
I've heard alot of people ask about the 360 being hooked up to it, but what i've heard it wont work with out lagging. I wanted to hook up my gCube and soon to be Wii to my MBP with the elegato(or what ever its called) but all I heard was lag stories....
swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 03:24 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 24, 05:58 PM
I thought Yonah and Merom are basically the same cost-wise. That's why everyone thinks including merom in new systems won't raise the price of those systems. I could be wrong.
They will be - at least initially - but Intel will undoubtedly lower prices on the Yonah chips shortly, making a cheaper Yonah-based Mini feasible.
They will be - at least initially - but Intel will undoubtedly lower prices on the Yonah chips shortly, making a cheaper Yonah-based Mini feasible.
ciTiger
May 2, 06:06 PM
That's a very nice feature! Too bad it won't work for apps not from the app store...
SiliconAddict
Aug 24, 10:15 PM
Shoot. I was actually hoping they would do this at MW in Jan. I need to get my mom a new computer and $600 is too much. I was hoping for a nice post release discount on the mini. :( Right now I'm tapped for funds what with my Prius showing up next month.
I guess I'll have to wait until the NEXT round of updates. dang. :(
I guess I'll have to wait until the NEXT round of updates. dang. :(
ipadfanatic
Oct 21, 08:39 PM
Not sure who mentioned the Switcheasy cases first but thank you. I ordered two color cases on Monday night, they shipped from San Francisco on Tuesday and I received them in Maryland today.
Fit is nice and the screen guard looks and feels great.
Fit is nice and the screen guard looks and feels great.
jav6454
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
Probably a daft question but i'll ask anyhows so forgive my techie noobness!
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe 2.0 x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe 2.0 x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
digitaldean
Feb 26, 10:54 PM
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
afrowq
Apr 21, 12:34 PM
Performance and specifications determine whether or not it's a "Pro", not the people who use them. I'm not a professional race car driver, but my car has over 400hp. Does that mean that my car is not the high-performance sports car that the automotive world widely claims it to be?
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Yes, a 30 second observation of people surfing FB on their Macbook (pros) is sufficient for me to assume that they are not performing complex video rendering or multi-filter Photoshop layering.
Laptops are not Pro machines. A 13" laptop with shared memory and a glossy screen is not professional. Unless your profession is being a writer. The "pro" moniker is a marketing ploy.
I realize the 15" and 17" are more powerful, but you still can't edit 4K RED footage on one, for example. But a Mac Pro? There's nothing professional you can throw at it that it can't do.
Also, regarding the car metaphor: put your 400hp car up against a NASCAR or Formula 1 vehicle and see how well it does on the racetrack against other REAL professional cars.
The car is nice, I'm sure, but is not a vehicle doing professional high performance driving. The same is true of macbook pros. They're solid machines, but they are not professional performance machines.
And besides, how do you know those people aren't using heavy-duty applications? Is a thirty-second observation at Starbucks enough to justify such a statement?
Yes, a 30 second observation of people surfing FB on their Macbook (pros) is sufficient for me to assume that they are not performing complex video rendering or multi-filter Photoshop layering.
Laptops are not Pro machines. A 13" laptop with shared memory and a glossy screen is not professional. Unless your profession is being a writer. The "pro" moniker is a marketing ploy.
I realize the 15" and 17" are more powerful, but you still can't edit 4K RED footage on one, for example. But a Mac Pro? There's nothing professional you can throw at it that it can't do.
Also, regarding the car metaphor: put your 400hp car up against a NASCAR or Formula 1 vehicle and see how well it does on the racetrack against other REAL professional cars.
The car is nice, I'm sure, but is not a vehicle doing professional high performance driving. The same is true of macbook pros. They're solid machines, but they are not professional performance machines.
scrapple
Jun 24, 09:06 AM
apple will do anything to sell more apps and make more money..
its all about money now.. sad..
its all about money now.. sad..
cult hero
Mar 22, 06:14 PM
The question is WHY? You can keep your nano/touch...
Yeah, I don't understand when people want to kill products they don't use. Like I care if the Classic keeps on going. I know at least three people that still prefer it.
Personally, I'm at the point where I'd almost trash my personal collection in favor of Pandora, but that doesn't mean OTHER people don't want to carry a ton of music with them.
Yeah, I don't understand when people want to kill products they don't use. Like I care if the Classic keeps on going. I know at least three people that still prefer it.
Personally, I'm at the point where I'd almost trash my personal collection in favor of Pandora, but that doesn't mean OTHER people don't want to carry a ton of music with them.
macintel4me
Sep 1, 03:53 PM
What "This" is This? You need to include a link with your references please? We can't read your mind. :confused:
I think "This" is this thread; "23-inch iMac on Sept 12th?".
I think "This" is this thread; "23-inch iMac on Sept 12th?".
FoxyKaye
Jun 23, 12:00 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
EricNau
Jul 18, 02:01 AM
Whether buying or renting, I hope these movies will be better quality than the current videos on the iTunes Music Store. I wouldn't pay a dime for a video that wasn't at least DVD quality.
It's good that iTunes is gaining more features that will help keep it ahead of Microsoft.
It's good that iTunes is gaining more features that will help keep it ahead of Microsoft.
PlayballTim
Jan 2, 12:54 PM
I can't see Apple coping with carriers and competitors like Nokia, and Motorola, but CAN see Apple chasing the 100,000,000 user plus PTP phone market with a wifi phone. I've got a dozen other reasons, but it adds up to 1,200 words that can't fit here. But check out the rationale on my blog, CogentPassion (http://cogentpassion.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-gonna-be-wi-fiphone-apple-wi-fi.html):
tktaylor1
Feb 5, 02:09 PM
2002 Audi A4. 18th birthday present
tvguru
Aug 7, 04:51 AM
I like the UK. B&O have their entire product range here, wheras they don't in Australia...
B&O?
Edit:
I'm assuming Bang & Olufsen, I've never heard of them.
Google is my friend
B&O?
Edit:
I'm assuming Bang & Olufsen, I've never heard of them.
Google is my friend
plinden
Jul 20, 04:55 PM
That's funny that is not what they told us when I worked for Aldus, although there was one time that we could not trade.
I think the blackout period is only for execs and VPs, most of the time.
Last company I worked for, there was a blackout period for everyone, but it was longer for executive and sales staff, or in fact for anyone who might have had detailed inside knowledge. For instance one colleague, a software engineer, shared an office for a few months with a sales manager, and during that time he had a longer blackout period than the rest of us because he might have overheard some insider information.
Also, we weren't allowed to short the company stock ... since that's kind of like athletes betting that their team will lose, and you might be tempted to release information that would tank the stock.
I think the blackout period is only for execs and VPs, most of the time.
Last company I worked for, there was a blackout period for everyone, but it was longer for executive and sales staff, or in fact for anyone who might have had detailed inside knowledge. For instance one colleague, a software engineer, shared an office for a few months with a sales manager, and during that time he had a longer blackout period than the rest of us because he might have overheard some insider information.
Also, we weren't allowed to short the company stock ... since that's kind of like athletes betting that their team will lose, and you might be tempted to release information that would tank the stock.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 02:23 AM
Here is your quote SeaFox.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
cwoloszynski
Nov 29, 03:07 PM
I don't care what extra features it has, as long as Apple designs a decent remote for it. Something full-sized with a click-wheel. I'd love to fast-forward through a movie using the click-wheel. The 4X, 8X etc on my current PVR just doesn't do it for me.
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
Apple Rox
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
Apple Rox
albusseverus
Jun 23, 08:25 AM
Lay the iMac on it's back, and it all becomes clear. There's nothing more frustrating than not being able to touch your computer screen. A wedge shaped iMac is the best of both worlds�touch screen for moving stuff around and an optional keyboard for bulk text entry and keyboard shortcut commands.
Then the whole Apple line becomes different sized "tablets". 3.5", 10", 13", 15", 17", 22", 27", 30" Didn't Apple take control of the Tablet Mac trademark (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/29/apple-takes-control-of-tabletmac-trademark/) recently? Optional keyboard. The bigger the machine, the more full featured the Mac OS you get.
I just hope the rumour is confused and we get a proper Touch Mac OS, not either or. I suppose you could stand it up and use a keyboard and mouse, but who'd bother if they have a nice 22" touch screen to work with?
Problem is, Apple can't even manage to get Finder or iTunes to be full-Cocoa, so what are the chances they've figured out how to do a proper Touch Mac OS UI given their fascination with the 'new markets' of iPad and iPhone?
(maybe this is why, don't waste effort on mouse OS X when a touch OS is so close � if only�)
I'd dearly love to see Apple 'test the water' with a Touch iMac, but it had better be a well thought-out MacOS, not a printerless, fontless, filesystemless iOS botched job.
Then the whole Apple line becomes different sized "tablets". 3.5", 10", 13", 15", 17", 22", 27", 30" Didn't Apple take control of the Tablet Mac trademark (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/29/apple-takes-control-of-tabletmac-trademark/) recently? Optional keyboard. The bigger the machine, the more full featured the Mac OS you get.
I just hope the rumour is confused and we get a proper Touch Mac OS, not either or. I suppose you could stand it up and use a keyboard and mouse, but who'd bother if they have a nice 22" touch screen to work with?
Problem is, Apple can't even manage to get Finder or iTunes to be full-Cocoa, so what are the chances they've figured out how to do a proper Touch Mac OS UI given their fascination with the 'new markets' of iPad and iPhone?
(maybe this is why, don't waste effort on mouse OS X when a touch OS is so close � if only�)
I'd dearly love to see Apple 'test the water' with a Touch iMac, but it had better be a well thought-out MacOS, not a printerless, fontless, filesystemless iOS botched job.
Killyp
Aug 7, 07:31 AM
The ability to exclude certain windows from Expose "Show all Windows". Kind of irritating when there are, ahem, certain windows up that you would prefer your parents don't see...
When your finger misses F10 and gets to F11, it can be kind of irritating...
When your finger misses F10 and gets to F11, it can be kind of irritating...
No comments:
Post a Comment