apfhex
Jan 9, 03:41 PM
...You suck.
:o At least I wasn't the first. :o I totally forgot. Quick, edit my quote in your post and no one else had to know. :)
:o At least I wasn't the first. :o I totally forgot. Quick, edit my quote in your post and no one else had to know. :)
srl7741
Apr 13, 12:22 PM
As much as I disagree with everything TSA they are not the problem "we" are for allowing them to do what they do everyday. We continue to lower the bar and I don't see it going back up. It's difficult to reverse such a large thing after we have accepted it. Next up Saturday/Sunday sporting events or other places with very large numbers of people.
transcend
Sep 26, 11:42 AM
What's hilarious is that you guys are arguing about beta software and a product that, up until this point, has been a huge disaster. Asking someone to rotate a raw image 180 degrees with a straightening tool is absurd. It isn't meant to do that. End of story.
I am not sure how many of you are professional photographers, but I can tell you that most of us have tried both products and are still using what works best: Iview media pro and C1 Pro (as well as photo mechanic for iptc info in batches). All 3 products have been around forever, and work flawlessly. What's comical, is that running all 3 of those apps concurently, is faster than running only aperture on my powerbook G4, as well as on my Mac Pro.
Aperture is a pig even on a shiny new mac pro compared to C1 and Iview. Lightroom just doesn't feel complete, and to be frank, the way the program is laid out is annoying as hell when you need to get things done quickly (like when filing from a football game, on deadline while sorting through 1000+ shots). It takes all day just to even get them imported into aperture, while I view does it in about 2 minutes. In 2 minutes, I can be choosing selects and sepertating the wheat from the chaff. This is not the case with either aperture or lightroom.
I am not sure how many of you are professional photographers, but I can tell you that most of us have tried both products and are still using what works best: Iview media pro and C1 Pro (as well as photo mechanic for iptc info in batches). All 3 products have been around forever, and work flawlessly. What's comical, is that running all 3 of those apps concurently, is faster than running only aperture on my powerbook G4, as well as on my Mac Pro.
Aperture is a pig even on a shiny new mac pro compared to C1 and Iview. Lightroom just doesn't feel complete, and to be frank, the way the program is laid out is annoying as hell when you need to get things done quickly (like when filing from a football game, on deadline while sorting through 1000+ shots). It takes all day just to even get them imported into aperture, while I view does it in about 2 minutes. In 2 minutes, I can be choosing selects and sepertating the wheat from the chaff. This is not the case with either aperture or lightroom.
djgamble
Mar 28, 03:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
How about Cydia apps? ;p
How about Cydia apps? ;p
Chupa Chupa
Sep 12, 06:55 AM
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
Do you recall when iTunes launched the video store? The only TV shows were like 3-4 ABC shows + a few Disney Channel shows. I think you are underestimating the power of iTunes to drag studios along. Disney has a large library of titles, and not just Mickey Goes to Camp.
But it's going to be HARDWARE that looms large if a movie store can be sucessfull, then pricing, then content. No WS iPod, and I think the sucess rate goes down dramatically. The majority of people have no desire to watch movies on their computer unless maybe on a laptop if they are travelling.
Do you recall when iTunes launched the video store? The only TV shows were like 3-4 ABC shows + a few Disney Channel shows. I think you are underestimating the power of iTunes to drag studios along. Disney has a large library of titles, and not just Mickey Goes to Camp.
But it's going to be HARDWARE that looms large if a movie store can be sucessfull, then pricing, then content. No WS iPod, and I think the sucess rate goes down dramatically. The majority of people have no desire to watch movies on their computer unless maybe on a laptop if they are travelling.
b0r3dguy
Apr 26, 01:43 AM
Screen size looks just fine. Large devices like the EVO with its 4.3" screen is TOO large. I hope this will come out sooner instead of later.
bousozoku
Sep 25, 04:28 PM
I guess I mean support without any hacks necessary.
As long as you had enough RAM, the right processor, and the right version of Mac OS X, it was supported. It hasn't changed in the low level requirements. :)
My machine didn't have enough RAM, so it was immediately rejected. However, they were doing me a favour because the dual and dual core G5s still had performance issues with it.
As long as you had enough RAM, the right processor, and the right version of Mac OS X, it was supported. It hasn't changed in the low level requirements. :)
My machine didn't have enough RAM, so it was immediately rejected. However, they were doing me a favour because the dual and dual core G5s still had performance issues with it.
Michael383
May 3, 10:56 PM
Good commercial, better than the iPhone ones IMO.
DoFoT9
Jul 17, 01:27 AM
^^ no thanks nicole. we are right :)
ctdonath
Oct 1, 02:07 PM
Wonder what the stairway leads to?
Basement. Follow the Gizmodo links and you'll find the rather uninteresting floorplan thereof.
Basement. Follow the Gizmodo links and you'll find the rather uninteresting floorplan thereof.
chrono1081
Apr 5, 04:23 PM
anyone that would download this app is a complete moron
Not really. You know this app is more for people interested in creating iAds right? This way they can see what is possible to be done and create their own. Think of it like when you go to the paint store and they have swatches for you to look at. Its kind of the same thing.
Not really. You know this app is more for people interested in creating iAds right? This way they can see what is possible to be done and create their own. Think of it like when you go to the paint store and they have swatches for you to look at. Its kind of the same thing.
wdogmedia
Oct 19, 10:32 AM
Wow...right now Apple's stock is up $4.59.
villanova329
Nov 16, 12:46 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
ciTiger
Apr 29, 03:57 PM
More great news I hope!
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 02:40 PM
What is Gay History? History, while interesting, has always struck me as unimportant in educating Children for essential workforce skills. Leave history for Colleges or elective courses.
Absolutely not. History is just as essential in building a rational model of the world as math or science is. It just has to be taught properly, without the rote memorization of dates and people. More emphasis on the impact of events in the shaping of nations and civilization.
Absolutely not. History is just as essential in building a rational model of the world as math or science is. It just has to be taught properly, without the rote memorization of dates and people. More emphasis on the impact of events in the shaping of nations and civilization.
Links
Aug 23, 01:22 AM
The following was posted on www.barefeats.com last Friday:
"August 18th, 2006 -- New Apple 23" Cinema impresses. We ordered a new 23" Cinema display for our Mac Pro 3GHz. This new model (numbers starting with 2A6281 or higher) is brighter with better contrast than the previous model. Best of all, the pink hue on grey screens is gone."
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
Guess they got lucky.
Gus, at Apple's Cinema Displays (Mid 2004) forum, wasn't and his is also a "newer" version than the one barefeats got.
"I ordered my ACD 23'' online, on August 14th, and I got a display serial number 2A6290, with serious backlight leakage, and a magenta cast on the left side. I am going to the store to exchange it or return it."
"August 18th, 2006 -- New Apple 23" Cinema impresses. We ordered a new 23" Cinema display for our Mac Pro 3GHz. This new model (numbers starting with 2A6281 or higher) is brighter with better contrast than the previous model. Best of all, the pink hue on grey screens is gone."
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
Guess they got lucky.
Gus, at Apple's Cinema Displays (Mid 2004) forum, wasn't and his is also a "newer" version than the one barefeats got.
"I ordered my ACD 23'' online, on August 14th, and I got a display serial number 2A6290, with serious backlight leakage, and a magenta cast on the left side. I am going to the store to exchange it or return it."
SmileyBlast!
Apr 29, 03:12 PM
Nope.
That iCal is kinda annoying.
That iCal is kinda annoying.
richard4339
Nov 17, 10:12 AM
My presario v2000 has amd2.0ghz turion64. It is the same thickness as my wife's g4 ibook. It isn't near as hot as powerbooks.
-Chuck
I have the exact same laptop as yours (well, I did. It's leaving my ownership tonight!), and my first through when I got the new MBP C2D is that the MBP runs cooler than it.
But, I will give you this; my Compaq runs hot, but not always. It's pretty rare when it gets extremely hot, but it is almost always warm. The new MBP, on the other hand, seems like that while it can get hot, it runs cooler overall than my old Compaq.
-Chuck
I have the exact same laptop as yours (well, I did. It's leaving my ownership tonight!), and my first through when I got the new MBP C2D is that the MBP runs cooler than it.
But, I will give you this; my Compaq runs hot, but not always. It's pretty rare when it gets extremely hot, but it is almost always warm. The new MBP, on the other hand, seems like that while it can get hot, it runs cooler overall than my old Compaq.
Branskins
Apr 29, 01:29 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Come on, really?
Come on, really?
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 02:40 PM
You forgot something. You are comparing diesel to unleaded even in hybrid form. You need to compare the generators (unlead to unlead). Now image if those very high gas mileage diesel running as a hybrid.
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
QuarterSwede
Oct 12, 08:26 AM
I'm not sure I understand the people who (a) don't believe this is coming soon, or (b) don't believe it's coming at all because "people won't use it - it's too small." That's garbage.
Not everything Apple releases has to be an "earth shattering" revolution. Some stuff can just have a niche market and be better than what's out there. They're in it to make money first and foremost. And frankly, if people could carry an iPod-sized object, with wireless headphones, and that could play widescreen movies on a 4" or so screen (AND, oh by the way, carry their iTunes library to boot), it would be the death of the portable DVD player.
No, that's not a huge market, or a cash cow by any means. Nor is it a revolutionary product. But at the end of the day, it's pretty damned cool which means most of us will buy it (despite our attempts not to), and it's certainly another cha-ching to add to the list for Apple.
That's exactly what happened with the iPod. It was just another mp3 player but had an interface that was very simple to use, plus it looked much nicer than the competition.
Not everything Apple releases has to be an "earth shattering" revolution. Some stuff can just have a niche market and be better than what's out there. They're in it to make money first and foremost. And frankly, if people could carry an iPod-sized object, with wireless headphones, and that could play widescreen movies on a 4" or so screen (AND, oh by the way, carry their iTunes library to boot), it would be the death of the portable DVD player.
No, that's not a huge market, or a cash cow by any means. Nor is it a revolutionary product. But at the end of the day, it's pretty damned cool which means most of us will buy it (despite our attempts not to), and it's certainly another cha-ching to add to the list for Apple.
That's exactly what happened with the iPod. It was just another mp3 player but had an interface that was very simple to use, plus it looked much nicer than the competition.
Yvan256
Aug 2, 09:28 AM
The default M4A bit rate used by iTunes is a joke. You have to be 80 years old not to notice the huge difference between a CD and a standard iTunes M4A track.
I'm sorry but most people (I'd say 99.9%) can't hear the difference between a CD and a 128kbps AAC file.
Heck, we got people still using 128kbps MP3 for crying out loud. If they heard any difference (or if it really sounded like crap) we'd see them using 256kbps MP3 instead. Granted, the encoder makes a huge difference, but most files you see on P2P networks are 128kbps.
I'm sorry but most people (I'd say 99.9%) can't hear the difference between a CD and a 128kbps AAC file.
Heck, we got people still using 128kbps MP3 for crying out loud. If they heard any difference (or if it really sounded like crap) we'd see them using 256kbps MP3 instead. Granted, the encoder makes a huge difference, but most files you see on P2P networks are 128kbps.
balamw
Oct 2, 10:46 PM
Hello "lawyer". No legal permission is required for reverse engineering.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
B
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
B
pmz
Apr 16, 10:07 AM
A quick read through this thread is proof of why I normally don't bother reading or posting here.
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
No comments:
Post a Comment