scott523
Nov 15, 11:23 AM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?It could be the fact that the 8-core Mac Pro butchered the iTunes encoding and Quake 4 test? I'm shocked myself that Mac Pro tied for the lowest score in the iTunes test.
puckhead193
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
So now the question is do I still need to transcode to pro res my avchd footage :rolleyes::confused:
baryon
May 2, 05:00 PM
Great, but why use "Click and hold" when you can right click? Why implement the limitations of a small touch screen into a full computer that has the ability to do more? I hate things that require a delay. Click and hold sucks.
VanNess
Jul 20, 02:27 AM
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:34 PM
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
well i will be a nice guy and tell you what chin is.
right below the screen.....you see that thick white bezel with apple logo? that's the "chin."
if you ask me "what is apple logo?" then i will throw mac mini power brick at your face.
well i will be a nice guy and tell you what chin is.
right below the screen.....you see that thick white bezel with apple logo? that's the "chin."
if you ask me "what is apple logo?" then i will throw mac mini power brick at your face.
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
ingenious
Apr 8, 12:53 PM
I think he did. He said something like "okay, I've read the other side. Now can we go back to talking about my half baked misguided ideas?"
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
sappy1
Sep 14, 12:35 PM
I'm glad CR is taking its stand.
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
For me, the antenna issue was WORSE than people had reported. It didn't matter where I touched the antenna, the reception was affected.
True, the bumper completely fixed it, but there is still a problem with the device.
PBF
Apr 2, 01:39 PM
Is anyone able to video chat with other Yahoo users via iChat?
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
iJohnHenry
Apr 20, 04:58 PM
Yes, I love driving manual transmission cars. It's fun.
Yeah, but the others should know that you rely on public transportation, day to day.
Manual is fun, until you spend a couple of hours, or more, commuting every day.
Yeah, but the others should know that you rely on public transportation, day to day.
Manual is fun, until you spend a couple of hours, or more, commuting every day.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:58 PM
If you buy a truck or SUV because you want to tow or haul, drive offroad or use it for work, fine. If you bought it because you're being "protective", then, yes, that is a selfish motivation.
Larger SUV's and trucks often do suffer fewer driver fatalities, so in some ways they are safer (in the US), but that is because they force smaller vehicles to absorb most of the impact during a crash. Also, the rollover risk remains high, so that the "protection" you are buying is pretty conditional and may come at the expense of other people's lives.
In addition, I should point out that minivans are safer than SUVs, so if you want your family safe, buy a minivan. Finally, it's a proven fact that pickups are less safe than cars, period.
If you want to debate it further I suggest we start another thread though, so we can keep this one on-topic.
Larger SUV's and trucks often do suffer fewer driver fatalities, so in some ways they are safer (in the US), but that is because they force smaller vehicles to absorb most of the impact during a crash. Also, the rollover risk remains high, so that the "protection" you are buying is pretty conditional and may come at the expense of other people's lives.
In addition, I should point out that minivans are safer than SUVs, so if you want your family safe, buy a minivan. Finally, it's a proven fact that pickups are less safe than cars, period.
If you want to debate it further I suggest we start another thread though, so we can keep this one on-topic.
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 11:21 PM
i dunno if this has been cleared up in any other posts or whatever, but does anybody know if there will be a live quicktime video feed? i figured if steve is going to be demo-ing stuff in leopard, he'd want the hundreds of thousands of people to actually *see* it! anyway, just curious.
mr
There won't be a live VIDEO feed. Just the live TEXT feed supplied by MacRumors
mr
There won't be a live VIDEO feed. Just the live TEXT feed supplied by MacRumors
robbieduncan
Apr 10, 02:21 PM
I've only owned cars with a stick shift. It's sad to see that more and more models are now available in automatic only.
The only automatic I've ever owned was a car that was only ever made in auto form: a Jaguar XK8. Fortunately in the UK most mainstream cars are still available in manual.
There is another disturbing trend though: many modern manual cars (VAG group cars I'm look at you) won't let you use all three pedals at once. This is terrible for the spirited driver as you cannot heal and toe down the box. Kills the slight enjoyment one might get from driving a bland hatchback like a Golf.
The only automatic I've ever owned was a car that was only ever made in auto form: a Jaguar XK8. Fortunately in the UK most mainstream cars are still available in manual.
There is another disturbing trend though: many modern manual cars (VAG group cars I'm look at you) won't let you use all three pedals at once. This is terrible for the spirited driver as you cannot heal and toe down the box. Kills the slight enjoyment one might get from driving a bland hatchback like a Golf.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 26, 04:34 PM
I see people here still digging up the old WORD and WINDOWS argument that gets debunked every damn time someone brings it up.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
"Apple App Store"
Done! Call it a day. Job well done.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
Because its actually "Microsoft Word".
Big difference.
"Apple App Store"
Done! Call it a day. Job well done.
poppe
Aug 27, 01:08 AM
I still think FrontRow need to be improved drastically before it goes to a Media Center like thing. Great first attempt, but I still thing there is room for improvement...
miloblithe
Aug 31, 03:00 PM
Let's hope that those specs aren't the final ones. That they're just to clear inventory.
I'm hoping for Merom based mac minis.. Merom costs the same so why not ?
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.
I'm hoping for Merom based mac minis.. Merom costs the same so why not ?
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.
JFreak
Jul 20, 05:05 AM
Reading this thread I realized that technical issues are not deal-breaker for many people -- it's still price that matters the most. If download-to-own costs $10, then everyone keeps demanding better specs for the material and it never ends. But if rental costs a buck a piece, then it's fun to watch and quality feels acceptable.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
drewsof07
Nov 24, 08:13 AM
ASK and you shall receive!!
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 03:23 AM
Those sound like very reasonable expectations to me, but Apple specializes in the unexpected! :cool:
hdmi monitors? i'm not completely savy in the technology but if they begin to use standards such as Blu-ray will dvi stand up
hdmi monitors? i'm not completely savy in the technology but if they begin to use standards such as Blu-ray will dvi stand up
AlphaDogg
Feb 17, 11:52 PM
here's my current setup. I finally got a Intel Mac and it will become to main machine soon. In the Pic is everything in the sig but the IIc and Performa.
Nice setup! It has a little bit of everything in it!
Nice setup! It has a little bit of everything in it!
dylan6950204
Jan 10, 09:09 PM
i personaly would go wiht the ipod becuse it is made by apple witch always makes it that much better
a456
Sep 1, 02:09 PM
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
bketchum
Sep 1, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
If the Mac Mini and the MB would have stayed under 500 and 1000 repsectively then I would have said you are so wrong, but because they didn't I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with one just above 1999.
But then again, look how aggressively priced the Mac Pros are. My out-'n-left-field wishful thinking says:
17" iMac - $999
20" iMac - $1,499
23" iMac - $1,999
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,699 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,199 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
If the Mac Mini and the MB would have stayed under 500 and 1000 repsectively then I would have said you are so wrong, but because they didn't I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with one just above 1999.
But then again, look how aggressively priced the Mac Pros are. My out-'n-left-field wishful thinking says:
17" iMac - $999
20" iMac - $1,499
23" iMac - $1,999
GregA
Mar 22, 04:39 PM
I don't think the classic will die, nor will conventional hard drives in laptops, until you can buy 500GB flash drives for $100.
I'm going to take my meandering thoughts further :)
Many people could live with a 32GB flash-based laptop if all their data was available via mobileme OR a nearby 220GB iPod.
I'm going to take my meandering thoughts further :)
Many people could live with a 32GB flash-based laptop if all their data was available via mobileme OR a nearby 220GB iPod.
No comments:
Post a Comment