richardsim7
Mar 22, 04:40 PM
Yeah but are they going to improve the quality? The DAC on the iPod Classic is bloody terrible! It makes me sad :(
Stetrain
Apr 2, 08:18 PM
While you may think your sarcasm-laden post witty, the fact remains that you have not stated any kind of revelation.
They do not care about ONE consumer...but they certainly are going to care about the thousands of units that are being returned and exchanged in hopes of finding one good unit.
I would tell you to review the iPad forum but I have a feeling that message would be lost on somebody so insistent on keeping their head in the sand.
I like how you continue to respond to this one person and ignore the posts about actual personal experience with iPads and those who own them, and those who have seen plenty of others' iPads, all without defects.
They do not care about ONE consumer...but they certainly are going to care about the thousands of units that are being returned and exchanged in hopes of finding one good unit.
I would tell you to review the iPad forum but I have a feeling that message would be lost on somebody so insistent on keeping their head in the sand.
I like how you continue to respond to this one person and ignore the posts about actual personal experience with iPads and those who own them, and those who have seen plenty of others' iPads, all without defects.
IbisDoc
Mar 25, 05:50 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 09:11 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Merom?
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
To cut the price of the Mini by $100, Apple better hope Intel are doing a "Half Price" cut which is extremely unlikely. How much would it hurt Apple to just double the height of the Mini and put a 1.83 GHz Conroe (Allendale) in there and a 3.5" Hard Drive? I'm pretty sure no-one would be whining about that. It would also get the price back down to $499 easy!
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
To cut the price of the Mini by $100, Apple better hope Intel are doing a "Half Price" cut which is extremely unlikely. How much would it hurt Apple to just double the height of the Mini and put a 1.83 GHz Conroe (Allendale) in there and a 3.5" Hard Drive? I'm pretty sure no-one would be whining about that. It would also get the price back down to $499 easy!
hyperpasta
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
ehhhhh? :confused:
ehhhhh? :confused:
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:19 PM
Basically: "You Wait While I Render."
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
New one will apparently let you keep working while it renders in the background.
To be more exact, "You wait while I use 2 of your 8 cores to render"
JGowan
Jan 13, 01:03 AM
I think it's going to be a tablet that slaps the crap out of the Kindle. It'll be a full on computer tablet that does eBooks, too and is totally wireless like Kindle and can surf the internet like Kindle (free, like Kindle) but, again gives Kindle a sound beating in every single way known to man.
firewood
Mar 25, 07:31 PM
naysayers are probably more concerned with the fact that you can't look at the tv screen while fumbling for the touch controls on the ipad; physical buttons enable the player to just feel for the controls, without having to look down and miss the action on tv.
Clear plastic with cut-outs would enable a player to feel for touch controls without having to look. Attach by suction or something. Some company makes a variation already. I expect more to.
Clear plastic with cut-outs would enable a player to feel for touch controls without having to look. Attach by suction or something. Some company makes a variation already. I expect more to.
twoodcc
Dec 31, 05:31 PM
Sorry you couldn't have stayed in 4th place for longer lyzardking... but at least you can claim you were there! :D And you are getting more points for the team!
And it looks like mc68k is definitly going to be our first to the big 10 mil!! You are cooking right now with over 600k ppw - as Jim Carey would say (in Mask) "smokin"!
I have now organized my machines with five (linux) in the cold basement, and the 2 win/gpu machines in 4u boxes I got on ebay in the rack with the mac. I spent christmas day, snowbound, rerouting the wiring (and cleaning the "computer room" so everything at least looks much better. I actually got 4 4u cases so I have room to grow, they were $28 each plus $17? each for shipping. 4u is about the same size as a normal tower case so everything fits in nicely. I will post some pics soon.
sounds nice. looking forward to seeing the pics
Doesn't look like I'll be fifth for that long (looking over a shoulder at a quickly approaching twoodcc)
:cool:
ha. well it'll be a little while before i catch up to you.
also, congrats to rreini for reaching 1 million points!
And it looks like mc68k is definitly going to be our first to the big 10 mil!! You are cooking right now with over 600k ppw - as Jim Carey would say (in Mask) "smokin"!
I have now organized my machines with five (linux) in the cold basement, and the 2 win/gpu machines in 4u boxes I got on ebay in the rack with the mac. I spent christmas day, snowbound, rerouting the wiring (and cleaning the "computer room" so everything at least looks much better. I actually got 4 4u cases so I have room to grow, they were $28 each plus $17? each for shipping. 4u is about the same size as a normal tower case so everything fits in nicely. I will post some pics soon.
sounds nice. looking forward to seeing the pics
Doesn't look like I'll be fifth for that long (looking over a shoulder at a quickly approaching twoodcc)
:cool:
ha. well it'll be a little while before i catch up to you.
also, congrats to rreini for reaching 1 million points!
fr4c
Nov 23, 11:22 PM
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)
EJR
Sep 14, 09:04 PM
I caved and decided to just go ahead and order the Incipio dermaSHOT case today. I'm really waiting for Otterbox to release their new case, but apparently they haven't even made a final decision on it yet and I'm going to need something to hold me over till they do, so this seemed to be the best choice for me right now. I'm pretty sure a screen protector would have cost me about 5 bucks after shipping, so 19.99 for both the case/screen protector/stand looked like a pretty good deal to me. I'll put pics up whenever I do receive it.
Thanks guys.
Thanks guys.
iJohnHenry
Mar 1, 07:46 PM
Apparently the diesel Cruze tops out at 120 km/h (130ish mph);
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
Something amiss with your numbers.
130 mph is on the order of 210 kph.
120 kph is actually closer to 75 mph.
tablo13
Sep 16, 10:11 PM
Got these from eBay for $1 each, good quality.
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
It now says that the seller is away until September 29. :(
Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290471004347&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_3465wt_913)
It now says that the seller is away until September 29. :(
LarryC
Mar 4, 02:39 PM
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
Do you have any supporting evidence to back up this claim of yours that small cars are safer than trucks and SUV's? It might be selfish in your eyes that I bought an SUV for my wife to drive around in, I call it being being protective and reasonable! I should also add that I drive a 2009 Dodge RAM and I love it!
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
Do you have any supporting evidence to back up this claim of yours that small cars are safer than trucks and SUV's? It might be selfish in your eyes that I bought an SUV for my wife to drive around in, I call it being being protective and reasonable! I should also add that I drive a 2009 Dodge RAM and I love it!
CIA
Apr 12, 08:51 PM
They output to tape because they cannot grasp the concept that tape became obsolete a decade ago (and the ones who can grasp it are stuck dealing with others who demand delivery and archive on tape.)
I hate getting tape as delivery, but man I love it for archive. Tape sticks around while hard drives and burned data DVD's fail all the time.
What? Am I supposed to move over 6TB of archived video packages into the cloud? Hows that gonna work?
I hate getting tape as delivery, but man I love it for archive. Tape sticks around while hard drives and burned data DVD's fail all the time.
What? Am I supposed to move over 6TB of archived video packages into the cloud? Hows that gonna work?
strabes
Mar 22, 05:35 PM
a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc.
Your computer can do this right now with AirPlay.
Your computer can do this right now with AirPlay.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
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.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:17 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
cube
Mar 24, 04:26 PM
Which is not even out yet. Brazos/Zacate and Ontario are the ones I'm referring. Let me edit that out.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
Brazos is the platform. Zacate/Ontario are the chips. Bobcat is the core.
chasingapple
Jul 13, 10:49 PM
I say no thanks. Optical storage is way too slow! Why should I pay $1000 to get a 33GB disc that is slow on accessing when I can spend WAY LESS and use another harddrive thats 300GB+ and rewritable, or buy a 100 pack of DVD-R's for $10? I for one dont see this HD-DVD / Bluray thing getting big anytime soon, and Im sure as hell not going to rebuy my DVD collection, higher res or no higher res, I mean hell... I dont even have an HD TV yet,too damn expensive!
Apple - wait on this one please. Just put superdrives in everything and leave the combo drive in the past.
Apple - wait on this one please. Just put superdrives in everything and leave the combo drive in the past.
aswitcher
Sep 4, 10:40 PM
Would something in this realm be feasible for the mini updates? Just wondering while waiting for updates. Of course this is very vague on my part.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
BRLawyer
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
Would definitely be great if they would just support off-the-shelf graphics cards. I'd be a little surprised, but I've given up saying that Apple will or won't do something just because of their prior decisions.
jW
Well, it seems like the fabled xMac is finally coming for some... :rolleyes:
jW
Well, it seems like the fabled xMac is finally coming for some... :rolleyes:
interestedabit
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
BTW: I dont know why we believe a word out of Brian Tong's mouth. He's probably the most worthless person on CNET. Brian Cooley is where its at!
A-welcome to the forums, Brian.. :)
A-welcome to the forums, Brian.. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment