Websnapx2
Aug 4, 09:10 AM
Where have you seen this before?
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=54170
Yeah, I said announced. Leopard has been announced since Macworld. That photo may have shown us the cover, but that is not groundbreaking and as nice as it is, as previously mentioned I'm sure it won't be the final disk label. In the words of MosDef, they ain't sayin' nothin' new...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=54170
Yeah, I said announced. Leopard has been announced since Macworld. That photo may have shown us the cover, but that is not groundbreaking and as nice as it is, as previously mentioned I'm sure it won't be the final disk label. In the words of MosDef, they ain't sayin' nothin' new...
Analog Kid
Aug 2, 08:09 PM
Yes...he holds it up and then sticks it into the slot.
Interesting... I was about to edit my last post that Apple's site doesn't claim the Macbook has any slots... I can't see any in the Macbook QTVR images either.
Interesting... I was about to edit my last post that Apple's site doesn't claim the Macbook has any slots... I can't see any in the Macbook QTVR images either.
vitaboy
Oct 16, 03:47 PM
We heard something really similar to that when every other company released video-playing mp3 players before Apple did, and Jobs said he didn't see anybody wanting to have portable video. Well, Apple bit its tongue and released it, calling it "innovation".
You know what, Steve never said Apple would NEVER do a video iPod. What he said was that video just didn't make sense at the time. For one thing, he said that there was practically zero demand from iPod users for video. Then he qualified his statement by saying that the situation might be different in the future, but the media being what it is, his comment was reduced to the overly simplistic (but easy to report), "APPLE WILL NEVER MAKE A VIDEO IPOD."
And for your information, the release of the video iPod was innovative because Apple launched it in conjunction with $1.99 music videos and TV shows on the iTunes Store. Less than a year later, there are like 250 TV shows you can buy on iTunes, from the latest hits like Grey's Anatomy to old classics like Knight Rider.
I always get a little peeved that people are so easily dismissive of the iTunes piece of the iPod pie. iPod wouldn't be where it is today without iTunes and the iTunes Store. If it took Apple 18 months to convince the music companies to sell their music for $0.99 on iTunes, then don't you think Apple made the right decision by waiting to launch the video iPod simultaneously with iTunes video offerings? iPod is nothing without content and Steve clearly believes that iPod should never lack for legal music/video content, ever.
I, for one, know from an Apple iPod engineer that Apple had a working video iPod in the labs more than 2 years ago, but it's quite clear that Steve had the patience and foresight to wait until the time was right for video, instead of launching a product into a vacuum. History is full of products that - while technical marvels - utterly failed because they were before their time. Newton was one. The Tucker automobile was another.
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
Glad you are such a big fan of the iPod. :) I own 4 iPods myself. :-P
Your prediction about wireless isn't necessarily wrong, but what Steve understands is 1) timing is important and 2) technology in context is even more important. Microsoft never understood this - they're all about feature bullet points and will enthusiastically push out new tech that ends up being poorly implemented and doesn't even end up solving the problems that consumers face in using technology.
Zune is wireless for the sake of wireless. It's wireless crap. Having wireless will not make Zune a better device - in fact, I think most people will soon come to the conclusion that it's crap because there will be no other Zune users within 100 miles to "squirt" each other with.
What people seem to forget is that Apple isn't stupid. It's like all the bruhala that erupted last year when geeks of every stripe claimed iPod would finally be killed because the music cell phone would be the killer product. What's funny is how these people assume Apple suddenly sent all its engineers home and decided, "Well, we've sold 50 million iPods. Time to call it day. No new iPods, ever."
As is now all but certain, Apple has been working on an iPod phone for a while. So much for music phones killing the iPod - maybe this year's iPod, but Apple is not a company to stand still.
Same thing with wireless. What people seem to forget is that Apple already has shown the way in terms of wireless. I'm talking about the broadcasting features already built in to iTunes via Bonjour networking. If you go to any college dorm or library, you'll notice a few to a dozen iTunes music libraries that will show up in your iTunes. People are already streaming their music for free, direct from iTunes, over 802.11. iTunes Sharing has already been doing the "music community" thing for a long time now.
So it seems quite obvious to me that a wireless iPod will be able to pick up these local iTunes streams like a Mac or PC running iTunes can already do.
If Apple wanted to push the technology a bit, then iPods would be able to stream music iPod-to-Mac(s), iPod-to-PC(s), and iPod-to-iPod(s). None of these limited point-to-point crap like Zune. No slow, time-bomb file transfers. Instead, we'll see live streaming from one iPod to many iPods, PCs, or Macs. No music file will actually be transferred, just as in iTunes sharing, which allows Apple to avoid the messiness of wrapping files in DRM like with Zune. A wireless iPod could tune in simultaneously with many different streams at the same time, and it'd be instantaneous because no transfers actually occur.
Sure, you won't be able to take the streams with you, but wireless iPod with iTunes Sharing would be infinitely more usable and fun than some geeky, slow, unworkable Zune model.
So I say just wait. I mean, can you imagine how badly Zune will blow up after Microsoft has launched the product (when they've committed to expensive manufacturing and the R&D is finished) and Apple launches a wireless iPod that actually works like a wireless device is supposed to?
Remember - just think "iPod with iTunes Sharing" and compare that to Zune, and realize with a smile that Microsoft is rushing forward into one of the biggest trainwrecks in music history. Apple's just waiting for them to build up momentum so the spectacle will be spectacular when the tracks get cut out from under them! ;)
You know what, Steve never said Apple would NEVER do a video iPod. What he said was that video just didn't make sense at the time. For one thing, he said that there was practically zero demand from iPod users for video. Then he qualified his statement by saying that the situation might be different in the future, but the media being what it is, his comment was reduced to the overly simplistic (but easy to report), "APPLE WILL NEVER MAKE A VIDEO IPOD."
And for your information, the release of the video iPod was innovative because Apple launched it in conjunction with $1.99 music videos and TV shows on the iTunes Store. Less than a year later, there are like 250 TV shows you can buy on iTunes, from the latest hits like Grey's Anatomy to old classics like Knight Rider.
I always get a little peeved that people are so easily dismissive of the iTunes piece of the iPod pie. iPod wouldn't be where it is today without iTunes and the iTunes Store. If it took Apple 18 months to convince the music companies to sell their music for $0.99 on iTunes, then don't you think Apple made the right decision by waiting to launch the video iPod simultaneously with iTunes video offerings? iPod is nothing without content and Steve clearly believes that iPod should never lack for legal music/video content, ever.
I, for one, know from an Apple iPod engineer that Apple had a working video iPod in the labs more than 2 years ago, but it's quite clear that Steve had the patience and foresight to wait until the time was right for video, instead of launching a product into a vacuum. History is full of products that - while technical marvels - utterly failed because they were before their time. Newton was one. The Tucker automobile was another.
I'm a big iPod fan (i've purchased 3) but wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
Glad you are such a big fan of the iPod. :) I own 4 iPods myself. :-P
Your prediction about wireless isn't necessarily wrong, but what Steve understands is 1) timing is important and 2) technology in context is even more important. Microsoft never understood this - they're all about feature bullet points and will enthusiastically push out new tech that ends up being poorly implemented and doesn't even end up solving the problems that consumers face in using technology.
Zune is wireless for the sake of wireless. It's wireless crap. Having wireless will not make Zune a better device - in fact, I think most people will soon come to the conclusion that it's crap because there will be no other Zune users within 100 miles to "squirt" each other with.
What people seem to forget is that Apple isn't stupid. It's like all the bruhala that erupted last year when geeks of every stripe claimed iPod would finally be killed because the music cell phone would be the killer product. What's funny is how these people assume Apple suddenly sent all its engineers home and decided, "Well, we've sold 50 million iPods. Time to call it day. No new iPods, ever."
As is now all but certain, Apple has been working on an iPod phone for a while. So much for music phones killing the iPod - maybe this year's iPod, but Apple is not a company to stand still.
Same thing with wireless. What people seem to forget is that Apple already has shown the way in terms of wireless. I'm talking about the broadcasting features already built in to iTunes via Bonjour networking. If you go to any college dorm or library, you'll notice a few to a dozen iTunes music libraries that will show up in your iTunes. People are already streaming their music for free, direct from iTunes, over 802.11. iTunes Sharing has already been doing the "music community" thing for a long time now.
So it seems quite obvious to me that a wireless iPod will be able to pick up these local iTunes streams like a Mac or PC running iTunes can already do.
If Apple wanted to push the technology a bit, then iPods would be able to stream music iPod-to-Mac(s), iPod-to-PC(s), and iPod-to-iPod(s). None of these limited point-to-point crap like Zune. No slow, time-bomb file transfers. Instead, we'll see live streaming from one iPod to many iPods, PCs, or Macs. No music file will actually be transferred, just as in iTunes sharing, which allows Apple to avoid the messiness of wrapping files in DRM like with Zune. A wireless iPod could tune in simultaneously with many different streams at the same time, and it'd be instantaneous because no transfers actually occur.
Sure, you won't be able to take the streams with you, but wireless iPod with iTunes Sharing would be infinitely more usable and fun than some geeky, slow, unworkable Zune model.
So I say just wait. I mean, can you imagine how badly Zune will blow up after Microsoft has launched the product (when they've committed to expensive manufacturing and the R&D is finished) and Apple launches a wireless iPod that actually works like a wireless device is supposed to?
Remember - just think "iPod with iTunes Sharing" and compare that to Zune, and realize with a smile that Microsoft is rushing forward into one of the biggest trainwrecks in music history. Apple's just waiting for them to build up momentum so the spectacle will be spectacular when the tracks get cut out from under them! ;)
attila
May 6, 07:52 AM
so, I have to have headaches form using my iPad AND have to carry a pair of glasses everywhere. Glasses, which, I have to wear on top of my normal glasses!!! :mad:
AP_piano295
Apr 27, 01:29 PM
Let's talk about this, shall we?
We've already established earlier in the thread the following:
1) Crime and having low socio-economic status are correlated.
2) Blacks are more likely, for whatever reasons, to have low SES.
3) Ergo, blacks are more prone to turn to crime.
Point #2 is the point of contention. It's not a question of if point 2 is true, but rather one of why it is so. I submit the following premise:
1) In our society, an individual's income is correlated with his intelligence. This is easily seen in that college graduates earn more money than non-graduates, who in turn earn more than those who drop out of high school.
2) An individual's intelligence is correlated with his parents' intelligence due to heredity factors. As various and numerous studies have shown, blacks typically underperform whites by roughly one standard deviation. This leads us to the following:
3) The various (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm) genes (http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html) that influence higher intelligence occur less frequently in the African-descended gene pool than in the European-descended gene pool.
So, how do we test this hypothesis while controlling for environment? Lucky for us, we don't have to, as it's already been done, as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study). If you scroll down to the Results section, you will see the white children scoring at the top, black children in the bottom by about 1SD, and mixed children in the middle. As the study controlled for environment (the adopting families were all of the upper-middle class), it is reasonable to conclude that the above premise has merit, and that genes do have a degree of influence on intelligence.
Accepting that humanity is biologically diverse is simply the acknowledgment that various groups humans are different from one another in various ways due to our different genotypes. Such differences include, but are not limited to, physical appearance, athletic ability, personality, and cognitive abilities.
As a society, we already put some aspects of this theory into practice. An example of this is your doctor asking you if any instances of cancer, heart disease, etc. run in your family. Another is the various studies, most notably those relating to autism spectrum disorders, conducted on the Amish people, who are by and large genetically isolated from their "English" neighbors.
Finally, I would reiterate that it is not at all racist to take note of, accept, or reasonably comment on these facts. As I've said earlier, to properly combat the problem, one must first understand it. Denouncing the messengers as racist because their conclusions are unpopular will accomplish nothing except perpetuate the problem at hand.
All of that might be true but your making a big extrapolation off of a limited amount of evidence.
Your also imagining that a black person can be totally isolated from factors which dis-proportionately effect black persons.
-Black kids are more likely to have black friends (this is racism but it's true, black children are more likely to accept black kids, white kids are more likely to avoid black kids). This makes it more likely that black children regardless of their family environment are going to be exposed to the negative aspects of black culture.
-Teacher's expectations are probably lower for black students (again racism but true). It has been shown time and time again that low expectations correlate with lower performance (just as high expectations correlate with higher performance).
There are many many more factors which would have to be considered before one could make the blanket statement that "black persons have a lower average intelligence).
Further even if this were proven to be true it would hardly matter a slightly average lower intelligence would have very little effect on individual's abilities to succeed.
Intelligence in my experience is a highly overrated quality, I consider my self significantly more intelligent than the average person (who doesn't :rolleyes:). But I'm also a little on the lazy side, I'm highly inclined to procrastinate and goof off instead of studying, so as a result people who I'm inclined to think of my self as "smarter" than, frequently do better than me on tests, because they have a better work ethic.
Innate intelligence is something which is more or less impossible to change, and something which I am inclined to believe is somewhat un-important.
Again I think our focus should be on identifying negative cultural trends within the black community and considering ways to curb those self destructive trends.
We've already established earlier in the thread the following:
1) Crime and having low socio-economic status are correlated.
2) Blacks are more likely, for whatever reasons, to have low SES.
3) Ergo, blacks are more prone to turn to crime.
Point #2 is the point of contention. It's not a question of if point 2 is true, but rather one of why it is so. I submit the following premise:
1) In our society, an individual's income is correlated with his intelligence. This is easily seen in that college graduates earn more money than non-graduates, who in turn earn more than those who drop out of high school.
2) An individual's intelligence is correlated with his parents' intelligence due to heredity factors. As various and numerous studies have shown, blacks typically underperform whites by roughly one standard deviation. This leads us to the following:
3) The various (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm) genes (http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html) that influence higher intelligence occur less frequently in the African-descended gene pool than in the European-descended gene pool.
So, how do we test this hypothesis while controlling for environment? Lucky for us, we don't have to, as it's already been done, as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study). If you scroll down to the Results section, you will see the white children scoring at the top, black children in the bottom by about 1SD, and mixed children in the middle. As the study controlled for environment (the adopting families were all of the upper-middle class), it is reasonable to conclude that the above premise has merit, and that genes do have a degree of influence on intelligence.
Accepting that humanity is biologically diverse is simply the acknowledgment that various groups humans are different from one another in various ways due to our different genotypes. Such differences include, but are not limited to, physical appearance, athletic ability, personality, and cognitive abilities.
As a society, we already put some aspects of this theory into practice. An example of this is your doctor asking you if any instances of cancer, heart disease, etc. run in your family. Another is the various studies, most notably those relating to autism spectrum disorders, conducted on the Amish people, who are by and large genetically isolated from their "English" neighbors.
Finally, I would reiterate that it is not at all racist to take note of, accept, or reasonably comment on these facts. As I've said earlier, to properly combat the problem, one must first understand it. Denouncing the messengers as racist because their conclusions are unpopular will accomplish nothing except perpetuate the problem at hand.
All of that might be true but your making a big extrapolation off of a limited amount of evidence.
Your also imagining that a black person can be totally isolated from factors which dis-proportionately effect black persons.
-Black kids are more likely to have black friends (this is racism but it's true, black children are more likely to accept black kids, white kids are more likely to avoid black kids). This makes it more likely that black children regardless of their family environment are going to be exposed to the negative aspects of black culture.
-Teacher's expectations are probably lower for black students (again racism but true). It has been shown time and time again that low expectations correlate with lower performance (just as high expectations correlate with higher performance).
There are many many more factors which would have to be considered before one could make the blanket statement that "black persons have a lower average intelligence).
Further even if this were proven to be true it would hardly matter a slightly average lower intelligence would have very little effect on individual's abilities to succeed.
Intelligence in my experience is a highly overrated quality, I consider my self significantly more intelligent than the average person (who doesn't :rolleyes:). But I'm also a little on the lazy side, I'm highly inclined to procrastinate and goof off instead of studying, so as a result people who I'm inclined to think of my self as "smarter" than, frequently do better than me on tests, because they have a better work ethic.
Innate intelligence is something which is more or less impossible to change, and something which I am inclined to believe is somewhat un-important.
Again I think our focus should be on identifying negative cultural trends within the black community and considering ways to curb those self destructive trends.
BenRoethig
Sep 6, 09:09 AM
Anyone knows how the GeForce 7600 GT compares to the Radeon X1X00 series?
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
Much faster. Even the 7300GT is significantly better.
Anyway, of the two NEW edition to the lineup, the 17" GMA iMac is much more important to Apple's well being. Why? Volume. They're going to sell ten of them for every 24". The 24" is a silver bullet machine. It's really cool looking, but I don't see many plunking down $2000 on a family computer. It's not going to really appeal to professionals or prosumers either because of its feature set.
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
Much faster. Even the 7300GT is significantly better.
Anyway, of the two NEW edition to the lineup, the 17" GMA iMac is much more important to Apple's well being. Why? Volume. They're going to sell ten of them for every 24". The 24" is a silver bullet machine. It's really cool looking, but I don't see many plunking down $2000 on a family computer. It's not going to really appeal to professionals or prosumers either because of its feature set.
Silentwave
Aug 3, 08:46 PM
The iSight isn't up there either. Maybe it's getting axed.
I thought it was already being axed because it doesn't meet some environmental laws now....I think iSight will be integrated from now on.
I thought it was already being axed because it doesn't meet some environmental laws now....I think iSight will be integrated from now on.
RodThePlod
Jul 23, 04:28 AM
I'd rather read normal book. Screens will make your eyes cry.
This is why the content is crucial.
Since April, I have been offering downloadable text-based content for all iPods, (apart from the Shuffle and early models), from my web site.
These are mainly guides that people traveling from place to place would find useful - although I've also got sports guides such as a Wimbledon Tennis guide (which took me ages to create) also available for free download.
I call these Pod SnapShots rather than eBooks because that's what they are - a snapshot of a particular subject that you can flick through quickly to get the information that you need - be that airport guides, store guides, etc.
These are ideally suited to iPods screen size and resolution - any document bigger/longer than that needs a much better screen IMHO - so if these rumors are true it's possible that this new iPod device may be a completely new model focused on documents.
While everyone is focusing on Apple opening a Music Store - they may well be about to pull a fast one and open a Book Store instead! This would be *much* easier technically to implement! ;)
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
This is why the content is crucial.
Since April, I have been offering downloadable text-based content for all iPods, (apart from the Shuffle and early models), from my web site.
These are mainly guides that people traveling from place to place would find useful - although I've also got sports guides such as a Wimbledon Tennis guide (which took me ages to create) also available for free download.
I call these Pod SnapShots rather than eBooks because that's what they are - a snapshot of a particular subject that you can flick through quickly to get the information that you need - be that airport guides, store guides, etc.
These are ideally suited to iPods screen size and resolution - any document bigger/longer than that needs a much better screen IMHO - so if these rumors are true it's possible that this new iPod device may be a completely new model focused on documents.
While everyone is focusing on Apple opening a Music Store - they may well be about to pull a fast one and open a Book Store instead! This would be *much* easier technically to implement! ;)
RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel
Rowbear
Mar 6, 06:31 PM
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG7056-upload/1207750652_2ZMuC-XL.jpg
Many thanks folks. I'm glad you like it. ;)
EXIF: Canon 40D, Canon 400mm 5.6 @ f/6.3, ISO 320, 1/1000sec, fill flash, subject distance was 6.5 meters, 25% crop.
@ Jason: Yes, its a male Cardinal.
Many thanks folks. I'm glad you like it. ;)
EXIF: Canon 40D, Canon 400mm 5.6 @ f/6.3, ISO 320, 1/1000sec, fill flash, subject distance was 6.5 meters, 25% crop.
@ Jason: Yes, its a male Cardinal.
gekko513
Aug 2, 07:12 PM
I agree....but wouldn't it be better to say, malicious hackers? I think that most hackers are good people and just like to tinker with things. Of course there's always going to be some bad apples.
Yeah, hacking is just taking something and tinkering with it to make it do something that it's not really designed to do, isn't it? This can sometimes be useful and fun, but can obviously also be done for malicious purposes, and that's sometimes referred to as "cracking" and the ones who do it as "crackers".
Here's the link to the main blog page, with video: link (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/)
What do you think?
Wait a second. They use a 3rd party wireless card, and he said in the end that "the flaw is not in the Apple operating system as we used 3rd party hardware". I'd say that's quite different from the impression I got from reading the macrumors headline here. A default MacBook using the built in Airport isn't vulnerable as far as I can tell.
He also said that the exploit isn't as trivial as a generic buffer overflow. Now, to exploit a generic buffer overflow, you need to have a certain level of l337ness to begin with, so that means you don't have to worry about your neighbour braking into your wireless network, just yet. Unless someone releases premade tools to do the exploitation, I'd say that normal people and small businesses don't have to worry at the moment.
Yeah, hacking is just taking something and tinkering with it to make it do something that it's not really designed to do, isn't it? This can sometimes be useful and fun, but can obviously also be done for malicious purposes, and that's sometimes referred to as "cracking" and the ones who do it as "crackers".
Here's the link to the main blog page, with video: link (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/)
What do you think?
Wait a second. They use a 3rd party wireless card, and he said in the end that "the flaw is not in the Apple operating system as we used 3rd party hardware". I'd say that's quite different from the impression I got from reading the macrumors headline here. A default MacBook using the built in Airport isn't vulnerable as far as I can tell.
He also said that the exploit isn't as trivial as a generic buffer overflow. Now, to exploit a generic buffer overflow, you need to have a certain level of l337ness to begin with, so that means you don't have to worry about your neighbour braking into your wireless network, just yet. Unless someone releases premade tools to do the exploitation, I'd say that normal people and small businesses don't have to worry at the moment.
dhollister
Oct 15, 03:00 PM
Haha, that's the best part. And it's so true! Walk your ass over to that girl and sit next to her and share your music with her. Screw this "beaming it over" nonsense.
jacg
Sep 6, 10:07 AM
Anyone notice that you can configure a Mac Mini with a 160 GB hard drive. They're 2.5" aren't they? So that suggests 160 GB will be an option in Apple notebooks soon.
I guess that's not really an unexpected move. I only hope that we get a real 2nd Gen MBP with goodies that have developed since the first (rushed out?) attempt. I'd like one right now, but the longer we have to wait, the more optimistic I get.
Things I'd like in a 15" MBP: Easy-change drive/RAM, faster superdrive, FW800, Macbook-style latch & keyboard.
I guess that's not really an unexpected move. I only hope that we get a real 2nd Gen MBP with goodies that have developed since the first (rushed out?) attempt. I'd like one right now, but the longer we have to wait, the more optimistic I get.
Things I'd like in a 15" MBP: Easy-change drive/RAM, faster superdrive, FW800, Macbook-style latch & keyboard.
gnasher729
Apr 2, 03:20 AM
WOW!!!! 8 megapixe?!!!!!!! i remember like 5 years ago when i bought a 200$ camera and it was 6 megapixels and it was considered amazing and here is the iphone with a 8!!! ITS CRAZZZYYY:confused:
It is crazy, because with the tiny sensors in cheap cameras (and in the iPhone / iPad) you get the best overall results with a 6 megapixels camera. Anything above that just introduces more noise because you don't get enough light per pixel.
It is crazy, because with the tiny sensors in cheap cameras (and in the iPhone / iPad) you get the best overall results with a 6 megapixels camera. Anything above that just introduces more noise because you don't get enough light per pixel.
Foggy
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
I realize it's unlikely Apple will release a Conroe minitower, but I definitely still see a place for it, and hey, one can always dream. :D :cool:
I asked a while back if Apple were likely to release a mini tower type machine and was quite surprised with the agreessivley negative replies some people gave all but calling me an idiot for asking for one. Some people just dont seem to get the fact there could quite easily be a machine that sits inbetween the mac mini and the mac pro even though the imac exists.
I asked a while back if Apple were likely to release a mini tower type machine and was quite surprised with the agreessivley negative replies some people gave all but calling me an idiot for asking for one. Some people just dont seem to get the fact there could quite easily be a machine that sits inbetween the mac mini and the mac pro even though the imac exists.
Thunderhawks
Apr 12, 12:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
KnightWRX
Mar 28, 09:00 PM
Apple is at the core a software company.
No, Apple is a hardware company
Both of you are wrong.
Apple is a vertical systems integrator and vendor. They sell an vertically integrated solution that includes both software and hardware. They've been like this since the 70s, back when it was in-style.
These days, these types of vendors are rare. IBM still is with some POWER machines running AIX, HP has their Itanium/HP-UX systems and of course Oracle and the SPARC/Solaris boxes, but of course, these are mostly big-Iron Unix solutions, which is about the only place you'll find vertical solutions anymore.
Apple probably is the last of the consumer vendors doing vertical integration.
No, Apple is a hardware company
Both of you are wrong.
Apple is a vertical systems integrator and vendor. They sell an vertically integrated solution that includes both software and hardware. They've been like this since the 70s, back when it was in-style.
These days, these types of vendors are rare. IBM still is with some POWER machines running AIX, HP has their Itanium/HP-UX systems and of course Oracle and the SPARC/Solaris boxes, but of course, these are mostly big-Iron Unix solutions, which is about the only place you'll find vertical solutions anymore.
Apple probably is the last of the consumer vendors doing vertical integration.
notjustjay
Sep 12, 04:04 PM
Ordered a 2 gig at the new lower price. This will be a surprise for my brother, whose 2 gig nano (that he got free with MacBook purchase) was run over by a car a few weekends ago. He was quite unhappy. I take some responsibility for it because, following my lead, we ran across the busy street rather than walking to the nearby traffic light. The iPod fell out of his pocket when he broke into the run.
Moral of the story: don't jaywalk, kids!
Moral of the story: don't jaywalk, kids!
SandboxGeneral
Mar 21, 02:15 PM
Owned? Aside from some random dislike of the "term",
I worry about youth today.
Off topic here, but I have to say that I agree with you here. That owned or pwned terminology bugs me.
On topic, the story is good and I had to email it to a few friends of mine.
I worry about youth today.
Off topic here, but I have to say that I agree with you here. That owned or pwned terminology bugs me.
On topic, the story is good and I had to email it to a few friends of mine.
maclaptop
Apr 17, 08:51 AM
Agreed. Recipe for sucess:
Click.
Enter credit card information.
Get on with life.
Sign for package when it arrives in about three weeks.
Enjoy your new device.
The delays were actually a good thing for me. Gave me time to "cool off"
I'm with you on every point, except the cooling off period.
Now that Apple's quality control had tanked, I know that there's a great likelihood ill get a bad one and the return game will begin.
Even though I have an Apple store nearby, I buy BTO, so I'm stuck with what has become "The Crap Shoot, Gambling The Apple Way".
Click.
Enter credit card information.
Get on with life.
Sign for package when it arrives in about three weeks.
Enjoy your new device.
The delays were actually a good thing for me. Gave me time to "cool off"
I'm with you on every point, except the cooling off period.
Now that Apple's quality control had tanked, I know that there's a great likelihood ill get a bad one and the return game will begin.
Even though I have an Apple store nearby, I buy BTO, so I'm stuck with what has become "The Crap Shoot, Gambling The Apple Way".
xsedrinam
Sep 22, 11:33 PM
It's worth the effort to read the Update. Reuters articule (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-09-22T185622Z_01_WEN5836_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-WALMART-STUDIOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22).
MacFly123
Nov 2, 04:29 PM
FLASH
Apple does not care to support flash on their devices because it is horribly inefficient and has been holding back progression of the internet for over a decade. Instead of using much more efficient open standards that the world wide web is founded upon, companies like Adobe and Microsoft are more interested in locking you into their inferior technologies in order to maintain revenue! Until Flash dies Apple will continue to support the progression of the internet using approved standards!
FLASH SUCKS! GO SUCK ONE ADOBE! :p
Apple does not care to support flash on their devices because it is horribly inefficient and has been holding back progression of the internet for over a decade. Instead of using much more efficient open standards that the world wide web is founded upon, companies like Adobe and Microsoft are more interested in locking you into their inferior technologies in order to maintain revenue! Until Flash dies Apple will continue to support the progression of the internet using approved standards!
FLASH SUCKS! GO SUCK ONE ADOBE! :p
~Shard~
Sep 6, 08:54 AM
Wow, this is great news, I'm impressed - I never saw a 24" iMac in the cards!
And, since it's Merom, this makes the likelihood of seeing a Conroe minitower even better - after all, Apple has to stick the Conroe chip in something, right? ;) :D As it stands now, since Merom is technically the "mobile chip", Apple has 5 mobile solutions (2 mobile MB/MBPs, 3 not-so-mobile iMacs) and a workstation solution (Mac Pro), so where is the desktop solution? :p :cool:
And, since it's Merom, this makes the likelihood of seeing a Conroe minitower even better - after all, Apple has to stick the Conroe chip in something, right? ;) :D As it stands now, since Merom is technically the "mobile chip", Apple has 5 mobile solutions (2 mobile MB/MBPs, 3 not-so-mobile iMacs) and a workstation solution (Mac Pro), so where is the desktop solution? :p :cool:
JackRoch
Apr 3, 06:28 PM
Staying away from the traditional rangefinder lens deign did not make the lens thinner, it just allowed the extra room to clear out the mirror swing but the les had to get bigger and protrude more. It is like saying "no need to make the phone thicker, just make the lens stck out!" which obviously isn't really an attractive solution - it was done one a few years ago and didn't fare all that well.
I wasn't proposing the same solution, merely an observation on the statement:
"You are limited by the focal length, which is dictated by the thickness of the device. There is no magic way around this."
For example: with the various adapters to use 35mm lenses on 4/3rds format some include elements to accommodate different registration distances.
i.e. you're neither limited by the focal length; nor is the focal length dictated by the device. Is that not so? Could you not employ a nice aspherical positive element to take advantage of a larger sensor without "just making the lens stick out"? (ref his original link to DPReview article on Focal Length).
I wasn't proposing the same solution, merely an observation on the statement:
"You are limited by the focal length, which is dictated by the thickness of the device. There is no magic way around this."
For example: with the various adapters to use 35mm lenses on 4/3rds format some include elements to accommodate different registration distances.
i.e. you're neither limited by the focal length; nor is the focal length dictated by the device. Is that not so? Could you not employ a nice aspherical positive element to take advantage of a larger sensor without "just making the lens stick out"? (ref his original link to DPReview article on Focal Length).
MacsRgr8
Sep 6, 08:58 AM
Does anyone know how the 7300GT compares to the X1600? I am leaning towards the 20" to replace my 17" rev. A iMacG5, but would upgrade to the 24" is the GPU is a big bump.
Well, it seems to be comparable with the X1800 GT, and that card is alot faster than the X1600.
Well, it seems to be comparable with the X1800 GT, and that card is alot faster than the X1600.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar