CmdrLaForge
Apr 23, 12:03 AM
streaming original masters of the song to prevent uploading is very smart, but will probably be only for iTunes purchased songs.
I assume they could do that for all songs they have in the iTunes Store library independent if you purchased through iTunes or not. long as the file is in your iTunes library.
For a song that isn't in the iTunes Store library ( those without the covers) they probably haven't negotiated any rights.
I assume they could do that for all songs they have in the iTunes Store library independent if you purchased through iTunes or not. long as the file is in your iTunes library.
For a song that isn't in the iTunes Store library ( those without the covers) they probably haven't negotiated any rights.
sam10685
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
dude... the 30 gig one shoulda be bumped to atleast 40 or 50... if not more.
Silentwave
Sep 6, 10:37 PM
hey, don't knock the cube! you can get a dual 1.6Ghz G4 cube nowadays :rolleyes:
CmdrLaForge
Apr 23, 12:10 AM
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
That the content isn't available is purely Apples fault and btw - as I would like to use the Apple TV mainly for slideshows - the content is available.
And yes, I want the Apple TV to support 1080p60. I have high hopes for the a5.
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
That the content isn't available is purely Apples fault and btw - as I would like to use the Apple TV mainly for slideshows - the content is available.
And yes, I want the Apple TV to support 1080p60. I have high hopes for the a5.
~Shard~
Sep 10, 02:05 PM
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough.
I agree with you (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here) but I would argue that in some ways, a 24" AIO is even worse than a 17"/20" AIO, due to the sizable (no pun intended) investment in the display. If your 17" iMac bites the big one, but the display is still fine, well, okay, you have to throw away a perfectly good 17" display. But they're fairly cheap these days, so whatever. However, what if something goes a year or so from now on your 24" iMac? For me at least, throwing away a perfectly good, high quality 24" display would really suck. :cool:
I agree with you (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here) but I would argue that in some ways, a 24" AIO is even worse than a 17"/20" AIO, due to the sizable (no pun intended) investment in the display. If your 17" iMac bites the big one, but the display is still fine, well, okay, you have to throw away a perfectly good 17" display. But they're fairly cheap these days, so whatever. However, what if something goes a year or so from now on your 24" iMac? For me at least, throwing away a perfectly good, high quality 24" display would really suck. :cool:
kavika411
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Newbie question - please don't flame me.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
Mac-Addict
Aug 31, 06:46 PM
well I need cash and i need cash fast if they put the prices up on a macbook pro after it gets the merom chip *Preys to god that prices dont go up* plus if the "iPhone" comes out im going to need to get one of those too :D perhapes i will sell my psp..
ShnikeJSB
Jul 14, 01:18 PM
Does a 1333MHz bus matter? (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6)
Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!
Also, to quote the article:
"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."
WOOHOO!!!
Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!
Also, to quote the article:
"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."
WOOHOO!!!
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
AlBDamned
Aug 23, 04:58 PM
A little-known company, and that was to create it's product. If apple buys one of their largest competitors, that will raise a few eyebrows.
Largest in a sense but Creative is hardly a competitor. The largest out of 25% is substantial in everyday terms but I think it's safe to assume the MS Zune would have destroyed their market share. And I wouldn't have cared if this lawsuit had flattened creative (as it was due to do before they won the patent filings).
Creative make feature-filled products but they lack a) finesse and b)the iTunes music store.
If Creative hadn't won the patent fight they would have already filed for bankruptcy by now.
Largest in a sense but Creative is hardly a competitor. The largest out of 25% is substantial in everyday terms but I think it's safe to assume the MS Zune would have destroyed their market share. And I wouldn't have cared if this lawsuit had flattened creative (as it was due to do before they won the patent filings).
Creative make feature-filled products but they lack a) finesse and b)the iTunes music store.
If Creative hadn't won the patent fight they would have already filed for bankruptcy by now.
Thunderhawks
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
Talk about an ugly logo for USB3!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
deputy_doofy
Sep 14, 11:02 AM
Dell currently quotes 9-22. Or did yesterday when I placed an order.
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
davey-nb
Sep 15, 06:11 PM
the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
...I think you'll find.
Yes, check Wiki...
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
...I think you'll find.
Yes, check Wiki...
gugy
Aug 31, 12:55 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
bennyhenry
Apr 20, 02:02 PM
I've just used the software on my iPhone 4 backup, and was looking at timeline and the locations. I noticed that at the same time point, the map was showing use in Swindon (where I am) and High Wycombe (65 miles away), as well as in London (80 miles away) at the next date stamp, but i've never been to either of those places ever with my iPhone.
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:26 PM
...which is still a bottleneck.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
:confused::confused::confused:
Have some new tech that you'd like to share with us?
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
:confused::confused::confused:
Have some new tech that you'd like to share with us?
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 10:41 AM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
0815
Apr 25, 01:26 PM
This just threw a spanner into my plans !
I've got a late 2007 non-unibody MBP - the "ultimate" which I've been updating as much as possible (Hybrid SSD 512Gb drive, 4Gb memory, etc etc) - I love my MBP but my applecare warranty just ran out last month. Which, I thought, was plenty timely so I could get the new MBP that just refreshed - quad core, 16Gb RAM seems like a LOT more power !
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
My current MBP is working great. The keyboard has a sticky "D" key, but apart from that, its been the best laptop I've ever owned, and the second longest I've owned before a refresh (the prior record holder was a Sony Vaio PCG-V505BX which I used/upgraded/refreshed a full 5 years before needing to upgrade !)
So what do I do ? I wasn't planning on buying the MBP until next month, after I got back from vacation...
If your current MacBook is still doing everything you want it to do, I wouldn't upgrade and wait (maybe 2-3 month after the new one is out) .... Of course the current one will also probably do more than you need, but if you can wait, it's always nice to have the latest design.
I've got a late 2007 non-unibody MBP - the "ultimate" which I've been updating as much as possible (Hybrid SSD 512Gb drive, 4Gb memory, etc etc) - I love my MBP but my applecare warranty just ran out last month. Which, I thought, was plenty timely so I could get the new MBP that just refreshed - quad core, 16Gb RAM seems like a LOT more power !
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
My current MBP is working great. The keyboard has a sticky "D" key, but apart from that, its been the best laptop I've ever owned, and the second longest I've owned before a refresh (the prior record holder was a Sony Vaio PCG-V505BX which I used/upgraded/refreshed a full 5 years before needing to upgrade !)
So what do I do ? I wasn't planning on buying the MBP until next month, after I got back from vacation...
If your current MacBook is still doing everything you want it to do, I wouldn't upgrade and wait (maybe 2-3 month after the new one is out) .... Of course the current one will also probably do more than you need, but if you can wait, it's always nice to have the latest design.
dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:11 PM
Interesting. Microsoft calls these files "Programs" and always has. Nothing called an application exists in Windows, it only has programs. Seems maybe MS is a little late to this game, and they're gonna piss all over it for everyone else.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:39 AM
You, sir, get it. The technologies create new capabilities that will adapt to the market. The luddites are only capable of seeing innovation as a loss.
yup, things are just changing.
why have 1,000 books on your shelf when you can toss it on a kindle? someone who wants 1,000 books on their shelf instead of on a kindle is just a hoarder ;)
yup, things are just changing.
why have 1,000 books on your shelf when you can toss it on a kindle? someone who wants 1,000 books on their shelf instead of on a kindle is just a hoarder ;)
benthewraith
Oct 27, 08:25 AM
It's about time Apple got rid of some of the rubbish materials in their machines, it's not that the campaigners are trying to brusie Apple but encourage them to be better than their competitors. I mean, Apple already has many advantages over Windows, so surely 'Green' can be one of them.
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Seriously. I mean I support the environment, but I know reactionary sensationalism when I see it. As someone said, Greenpeace has lost most of it's respect, even with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Seriously. I mean I support the environment, but I know reactionary sensationalism when I see it. As someone said, Greenpeace has lost most of it's respect, even with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 04:43 PM
Dude... That has to be the most racist thing I have ever read! :eek:
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
I don't see the point of your incredulity (come on man using 4 question marks twice in one post. That's totally flagrant).
We aren't any different. Social interaction is just another aspect of biological evolution. It all breaks down to reactions between atoms and there's nothing racist about it. Are you going to tell me that the evolution of animals doesn't depend on their social interactions?
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
I don't see the point of your incredulity (come on man using 4 question marks twice in one post. That's totally flagrant).
We aren't any different. Social interaction is just another aspect of biological evolution. It all breaks down to reactions between atoms and there's nothing racist about it. Are you going to tell me that the evolution of animals doesn't depend on their social interactions?
!� V �!
Apr 30, 06:21 PM
Bought monitors with anti-glare coatings. And monitor hoods.
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
0 comments:
Post a Comment