Eduardo1971
Mar 22, 05:00 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
135 GB and not a single pirated song/album in there!
Some people really, really, love music!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
135 GB and not a single pirated song/album in there!
Some people really, really, love music!
BC2009
Mar 25, 04:11 PM
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
iPad 1 does support HDMI out, just not the video mirroring. This means that an app must support the standard "video out" mechanism to be used with the HDMI adapter with iPad 1.
What I would like to see is this same thing using AirPlay :)
iPad 1 does support HDMI out, just not the video mirroring. This means that an app must support the standard "video out" mechanism to be used with the HDMI adapter with iPad 1.
What I would like to see is this same thing using AirPlay :)
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 12:42 AM
The reason Lion's only 3.7 GB right now is because it's an upgrade only. You can't install Lion on a clean partition right now, only upgrade from Snow Leopard.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
nporteschaikin
Feb 26, 09:43 AM
http://www.porteschaikin.com/personal/macsetup.jpg
emotion
Aug 16, 07:36 AM
Wonder if the wireless ipod wont be the iphone.
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
alectheking
Mar 25, 03:42 PM
Can the new GPU even do 1080p?
No, the whole article was a written lie. You obviously didn't watch the video either.
No, the whole article was a written lie. You obviously didn't watch the video either.
ipodG8TR
Aug 16, 12:31 PM
Thats far too complicated for Apple.
Couldn't the option to listen to Sirius be just another menu item?
Bookmarking a song could be as simple as hitting one of the buttons on the click wheel.
Satellite radio is just beginning. Why not partner up now and set the standard. Sirius subscribers would consider buying an ipod, current ipod owners like myself would want to upgrade...
Couldn't the option to listen to Sirius be just another menu item?
Bookmarking a song could be as simple as hitting one of the buttons on the click wheel.
Satellite radio is just beginning. Why not partner up now and set the standard. Sirius subscribers would consider buying an ipod, current ipod owners like myself would want to upgrade...
reflex
Sep 5, 06:56 AM
Do you seriously want the Apple is behind/outdated mindset to sink in again?
Personally I don't care one bit about Apple being seen as outdated, but it would just be one model. And the cheapest at that. With a dual core cpu, which most new pc's don't have at this time. In a cute little package.
I'm mostly saying that a 64bit cpu in a mini doesn't make sense until Leopard arrives and that is far enough away for another mini update before it happens.
Personally I don't care one bit about Apple being seen as outdated, but it would just be one model. And the cheapest at that. With a dual core cpu, which most new pc's don't have at this time. In a cute little package.
I'm mostly saying that a 64bit cpu in a mini doesn't make sense until Leopard arrives and that is far enough away for another mini update before it happens.
bristleworm
Mar 24, 02:11 PM
Interestingly, the broad range of cards apparently fully supported under Mac OS X 10.6.7 is leading to speculation that Apple may be looking to support more off-the-shelf GPU options as opposed to the Mac-specific cards that have been used to date.
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
Wrong! With Steve taking his leave this can only mean one thing: restart of the clone-program! :eek:
;)
Object-X
Sep 1, 12:08 PM
hopefully it's going to look like this:
56364
I agree, I want an iMac like computer with the aluminum housing; looks better on my desk! ;)
At any rate, hopefully the form factor will be thinner. I can see the 17" eventually being relegated to eMac status.
56364
I agree, I want an iMac like computer with the aluminum housing; looks better on my desk! ;)
At any rate, hopefully the form factor will be thinner. I can see the 17" eventually being relegated to eMac status.
damienvfx
Sep 1, 02:08 PM
This is pure speculation here, but remember a month back when there was talk of a cinema display with a built in camera? What if those rumors started from someone who saw the new iMac and didn't even know that it was so much more than just an update to the cinema displays?
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
Well, this is my first guess before a release, so we'll see how it pans out.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for a Merom MBP. Leaving for Australia at the end of September, I'd love to be able to bring it with me.
UnreaL
Sep 7, 03:07 PM
I have been a Mac user since 1986. I'm not a superuser or a gamer, but the one thing I have learned is to avoid models with too much built-in obsolescence (e.g. my old firewire-less, low-resolution clamshell iBook and the late-model CD-burner-less white iBook G3 that replaced it, not to mention the Powerbook 150 [agh!], Mac Classic [aaagggh!], etc.). Except for the lack of built-in DVD capability, the lampshade 700 MHZ G4 iMac has been a great investment.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
To me the move to intel has made Mac a viable option, especially given Bootcamp.
So here is my question. Are the $599 mini and $999 iMac going to become obsolete much faster than the $1199 iMac? Do the dedicated video RAM and Core 2 Duo (iMacs) make much of difference? I already have an external DVD burner and plan to buy 2GB RAM.
Actually the move to Intel has opened Apple to fast depreciation - and that isnt going away.
Many here seem to 'bitch' that Mac is now in competition with the PC in the hardware stakes and sadly that damages your resale value however the benefits are immense, I am sure Apple will be able to secure lower unit costs aswell as faster processors and newer technology. Its great for apple and for us buying, just bad if you sell hardware before it looses all value completely. It also means we will see these refreshes more often and so we will be buying more up to date hardware which as a PC user is great...
To me the move to intel has made Mac a viable option, especially given Bootcamp.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 01:07 PM
His profile says he's the Director of IT. Who am I to question that?
So I guess I can't be in the guard or reserve...
So I guess I can't be in the guard or reserve...
kiensoy
Mar 25, 05:58 PM
30fps with no motion blur? That's gotta suck. It looks good here because youtube plays at 30fps with motion blur captured by the camera.
GekiRed
Oct 2, 02:06 PM
I got a Gear4 protective shell for the iPod Touch that I'm waiting to be delivered by my friend in the US today from John Lewis in Liverpool as the Apple Store which is a few seconds walk away didn't have any 4G accessories in stock!
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
It cost me �19.99 and hopefully will do a good job in protecting it until I sell it on eBay next year. I probably won't bother with getting a protective skin.
chubad
Jan 1, 07:16 PM
This year is a tough one so far. Weak rumors at best. Apple has really stepped up the secrecy and plugged the leaks. Like others have said it will either be insanely great or insanely disappointing. To tell you the truth, unless some better sourced rumors surface I think it may very well be a disappointing keynote.:(
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
twoodcc
Nov 6, 05:48 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for hitting 2 million!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 5, 04:39 PM
Here's the bad news: it'll never happen.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
There is some overlap, but it's true that cetane ratings are lower in the US - I think they are mostly 40-50 or so, whereas the cetane rating in most European diesel is more likely to be between 50-60.
It's possible to raise the cetane rating with additives, but the fact of the matter is that European diesel allows higher performance in small diesel engines. Also, I have read somewhere that biodiesels tend to have higher cetane ratings.
Why? Because the cetane rating for US-sold clean diesel fuel is much lower than the cetane rating for European-sold clean diesel fuel. As such, for a US-model car it may be difficult to achieve the 170 ps engine rating of the Golf GTD. :(
There is some overlap, but it's true that cetane ratings are lower in the US - I think they are mostly 40-50 or so, whereas the cetane rating in most European diesel is more likely to be between 50-60.
It's possible to raise the cetane rating with additives, but the fact of the matter is that European diesel allows higher performance in small diesel engines. Also, I have read somewhere that biodiesels tend to have higher cetane ratings.
chillywilly
Sep 6, 05:03 PM
There's a good reason apple didn't go Core2 on the mini...it would make it too close to the new minitower they'll be announcing soon!
Mac Pro mini anyone? That would be kind of cool. I'm sure someone will photoshop up a pic soon.
Mac Pro mini anyone? That would be kind of cool. I'm sure someone will photoshop up a pic soon.
MattG
Aug 7, 07:23 AM
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???
Totally agree...that's one aspect of Windows that I do like better. Local networking on my Macs seems very sluggish compared to Windows.
Ever connect your laptop to a share on the network at work, put the laptop to sleep without disconnecting that share and then bring the computer home? Once the computer notices the share is no longer there, it basically hangs for about 30 seconds until it asks you to disconnect. Windows handles stuff like this MUCH better.
Totally agree...that's one aspect of Windows that I do like better. Local networking on my Macs seems very sluggish compared to Windows.
Ever connect your laptop to a share on the network at work, put the laptop to sleep without disconnecting that share and then bring the computer home? Once the computer notices the share is no longer there, it basically hangs for about 30 seconds until it asks you to disconnect. Windows handles stuff like this MUCH better.
islanders
Dec 27, 11:20 PM
For $299 I will guess you would get a dvd, and a download streaming device for iTV. But if you need a mac mini then you would have two dvd players. I hope there is an upgrade for some computer functions such as websurfing and word processing.
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
Comcast has video on demand and there is no additional hardware. This services is supposed to expand.
I don�t see a surround sound audio amp for $299. Perhaps a dock for your iPod, or the iPod is the harddrive.
I�m really curious where this iTV might be going?
quagmire
Mar 19, 09:32 AM
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
No, but we were asked to help out. We aren't sticking our noses into a mess we are not welcome in.
As long as we are not sending ground troops in, I support it. Right now, the Air Force and Navy are capable of bombing runs. They'll probably send in B-2's and F-22's for the initial strike to get rid of the anti-aircraft systems since they are stealth planes and then probably turn most of the enforcement of the no-fly zone over to the Europeans.
No.
No, but we were asked to help out. We aren't sticking our noses into a mess we are not welcome in.
As long as we are not sending ground troops in, I support it. Right now, the Air Force and Navy are capable of bombing runs. They'll probably send in B-2's and F-22's for the initial strike to get rid of the anti-aircraft systems since they are stealth planes and then probably turn most of the enforcement of the no-fly zone over to the Europeans.
poppe
Sep 1, 01:23 PM
knowing Apple they may put a $1,999 price on it at intro, since they know there will be a mad rush of faithful. Then after a month or two when sales settle, drop the price to $1,899 for the holiday season. Both those prices could be $100 lower, depending on what the base config offers.
Has apple done this before? I'm not trying to make it sound like i'm rude, I really just dont know. I know that when the first MBP's came out they did that silent upgrade in power but I didnt think it was price.
Has apple done this before? I'm not trying to make it sound like i'm rude, I really just dont know. I know that when the first MBP's came out they did that silent upgrade in power but I didnt think it was price.
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 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.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
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.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
No comments:
Post a Comment