mdelaney123
Oct 23, 07:04 PM
whoa...
hope that's true, but I also hope the 17 will be updated at the same time.
I had a 17" MacBook Pro and I ended up selling it... I use it as a passenger in a car every day and the lid is so big, combined with the hing being loose (compared to a 15") that every bump in the road, the lid would close!!!
So... I too and hoping for an updated 15" tomorrow... PLEASE let there be a new GPU !!!
hope that's true, but I also hope the 17 will be updated at the same time.
I had a 17" MacBook Pro and I ended up selling it... I use it as a passenger in a car every day and the lid is so big, combined with the hing being loose (compared to a 15") that every bump in the road, the lid would close!!!
So... I too and hoping for an updated 15" tomorrow... PLEASE let there be a new GPU !!!
ender land
Mar 19, 10:30 AM
I sort of support this, but as has been said before I think its time that America puts a heavier burden on allied nations to provide military assistance for UN resolutions.
America is constantly being blamed for policing the world and I think it is a criticism we often deserve.
But if the UN / international community is willing to allow/support the enforcement of a no fly zone. Than they should bear equal responsibility for the execution of the movement, the US shouldn't be providing 90% of the military support and funds.
Bingo.
The USA will probably get all of the blame for mistakes or things which happen too, regardless of involvement... I really would like the USA to take a much less active role in this than I expect it will do.
America is constantly being blamed for policing the world and I think it is a criticism we often deserve.
But if the UN / international community is willing to allow/support the enforcement of a no fly zone. Than they should bear equal responsibility for the execution of the movement, the US shouldn't be providing 90% of the military support and funds.
Bingo.
The USA will probably get all of the blame for mistakes or things which happen too, regardless of involvement... I really would like the USA to take a much less active role in this than I expect it will do.
Outrun1986
Oct 15, 06:14 PM
I had pretty good luck with this case from ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220664949687
Though the dock connector didn't fit quite right, the headphone jack is good and everything else is good. I just snipped off the piece that was in the way of the dock connector and now its perfect. Nice for a $3 case. There aren't any watermarks.
The seller was also really, really good. I didn't get the right screen protector with the case but a week later the correct one arrived in the mail without me having to ask! I thought that was really cool of him to send it for free.
As for buying another case I am waiting until I find my "holy grail" maroon case. One will come out eventually.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220664949687
Though the dock connector didn't fit quite right, the headphone jack is good and everything else is good. I just snipped off the piece that was in the way of the dock connector and now its perfect. Nice for a $3 case. There aren't any watermarks.
The seller was also really, really good. I didn't get the right screen protector with the case but a week later the correct one arrived in the mail without me having to ask! I thought that was really cool of him to send it for free.
As for buying another case I am waiting until I find my "holy grail" maroon case. One will come out eventually.
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 07:28 PM
... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.
Simple posturing.
His time has come.
He had his time in the Sun, now it's time to switch the lights off.
Simple posturing.
His time has come.
He had his time in the Sun, now it's time to switch the lights off.
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.
tMac85
Jan 11, 11:06 PM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
.jpg "DEMI LOVATO AND SELENA GOMEZ")
aafuss1
Aug 7, 03:46 AM
Logic-already runs great on 32 bit Intel Macs. A update-v 7.3 that includes additional optimisations for Mac Pro users would be welcome.
V8-could do the same, although my Babya Logic Pro 2 (http://babyasoftwaregr.livejournal.com/53070.html)
were demi demidemi lovato
demi lovato and selena gomez
selena gomez demi lovato
selena gomez and demi lovato
Selena Gomez amp; Demi Lovato
selena gomez and demi lovato
Selena Gomez says Demi Lovato
selena amp; demi
selena gomez and demi lovato
DEMI LOVATO AND SELENA GOMEZ
selena gomez the scene who
demi lovato and selena gomez
V8-could do the same, although my Babya Logic Pro 2 (http://babyasoftwaregr.livejournal.com/53070.html)
res1233
Apr 12, 10:07 PM
The App Store should really harness the power of torrent technology for files like this.
People sometimes have trouble with torrenting depending on what their ISP situation is like. It would be a nice option though so long as apple provides us with at least one fast peer. It would take some of the load off their servers too.
People sometimes have trouble with torrenting depending on what their ISP situation is like. It would be a nice option though so long as apple provides us with at least one fast peer. It would take some of the load off their servers too.
rmhop81
Sep 6, 05:23 PM
I sure hope you mistook the VGA input for the DVI input, otherwise you're crippling that gorgeous TV. Or you can get a DVI to HDMI cable to connect the Mini.
Sounds like a cool setup, the kind of thing I want to do too. ;)
the tv has vga input on it so i just use that an the dvi to vga adapter to connect it to the mini. It's actually really good quality as it is right now. Happy with how it is, plus i don't feel like spending $50 on a single cable haha
Sounds like a cool setup, the kind of thing I want to do too. ;)
the tv has vga input on it so i just use that an the dvi to vga adapter to connect it to the mini. It's actually really good quality as it is right now. Happy with how it is, plus i don't feel like spending $50 on a single cable haha
alphaod
Mar 24, 01:25 PM
I'd love to move up on to a 6970� as long as we don't get it when the 7xxx is about to be released.
swingerofbirch
Jul 19, 06:39 PM
I didn't hear the entire conference call--did anyone ask about the virtual slave labor they've got going on in China?
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
It's easy to have good numbers when it's someone else's belt your tightening!
HahaHaha321
Apr 2, 07:32 PM
Did this ad make anyone else misty-eyed, or is it just me? Anyone? /s:
I hope you're kidding. :p
I hope you're kidding. :p
flyfish29
Mar 27, 07:50 AM
I don't think MS dropping IE was because of Apple's market share.MSIE was more of a gesture than anything else, since it never supported activeX wich was the only real major reason for needing IE6...
I don't think I ever said it had anything to do with market share. I also believe that MSIE was all about getting M$ software on the mac which in their minds would make it easier to get other proprietary software on the mac ie. Windows Media Player which integrated better with IE than Netscape at the time. NOt to mention that they wanted to get rid of Netscape to (in their minds) have a heavy hand in internet development which they did.
I don't think I ever said it had anything to do with market share. I also believe that MSIE was all about getting M$ software on the mac which in their minds would make it easier to get other proprietary software on the mac ie. Windows Media Player which integrated better with IE than Netscape at the time. NOt to mention that they wanted to get rid of Netscape to (in their minds) have a heavy hand in internet development which they did.
quadgirl
Sep 1, 03:32 PM
I disagree.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
Merom makes more sense. Yes, they did get a G5 inside of the iMac, BUT, it was known for serious reliability problems. Overheating, blown capacitors, etc. The G5 iMac was really a poor design because it could *never* handle that much heat.
So, if they are going to use Merom, great. It's a small case, it doesn't have big fans (like the Mac Pro), I would rather have a cool (not hot) case with quiet fans as well as a reliable machine.
We can always hope for a Conroe mini-Mac Pro, but it will probably never happen.
The G5 is an insanely hot processor (along the lines of the Pentium 4 netburst cpus) and Apple should have a medal for making it work. Conroes are cool, really cool, so it can be done.
Maybe Apple's priority is to keep the iMac silent and as slim as possible (beauty before power). The problem is that the Merom maxes out at 2.33 ghz and the Macbook Pro 17" may well end up with that processor. It doesn't make sense to keep a consumer desktop at the same speed of the pro laptop. But then again, neither does it make sense putting a laptop processor in a desktop, unless a slim/quiet design is Apple's priority.
islanders
Dec 27, 11:35 PM
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
Chef Medeski
Aug 16, 09:05 PM
Its at least good to see Microsoft put pressure on Apple because it forces them to actually innovate.... which is what it looks like its been doing.... i love capitalism.
leekohler
Apr 20, 02:43 PM
Yes, I love driving manual transmission cars. It's fun.
twoodcc
Dec 27, 09:26 AM
It worked...
just enough points to take 4th place back (at least temporarily)
;)
nice. glad it worked for you!
and congrats to mc68k for 9 million points!
and congrats to whiterabbit for 5 million points!
just enough points to take 4th place back (at least temporarily)
;)
nice. glad it worked for you!
and congrats to mc68k for 9 million points!
and congrats to whiterabbit for 5 million points!
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
Morod
Apr 21, 12:07 PM
(Incidentally: we have like/dislike buttons on a per-post basis now? :confused: )
Good catch! I just noticed this once you pointed it out.
Good catch! I just noticed this once you pointed it out.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:49 AM
The real deal about codecs from Wikepedia:
HD DVD:
the same video compression techniques: MPEG-2, Video Codec 1 (VC1) and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.
HD DVD can be mastered with up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
BD:
decode at least the following codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. Realistically, when using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM. The two more advanced video codecs can typically attain four hours of high quality video.
For audio, BD-ROM supports up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
So, easily seen. The employ the exact same codecs. The only difference is:
BD:
Stricter DRM control
Much More Scratch Resistant
Greater future capacites
HD-DVD:
Cheaper to manufacture
And if Toshiba can make a 6-layer disc... well then that means a 90GB HD-DVD..... not bad. That would pull it in right above the total capacity of my PB HD.
HD DVD:
the same video compression techniques: MPEG-2, Video Codec 1 (VC1) and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.
HD DVD can be mastered with up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
BD:
decode at least the following codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. Realistically, when using MPEG-2, quality considerations would limit the publisher to around two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM. The two more advanced video codecs can typically attain four hours of high quality video.
For audio, BD-ROM supports up to 7.1 channel surround sound using the linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital and DTS formats also used on DVDs. In addition, it also supports Dolby Digital Plus and the lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD.
So, easily seen. The employ the exact same codecs. The only difference is:
BD:
Stricter DRM control
Much More Scratch Resistant
Greater future capacites
HD-DVD:
Cheaper to manufacture
And if Toshiba can make a 6-layer disc... well then that means a 90GB HD-DVD..... not bad. That would pull it in right above the total capacity of my PB HD.
milbournosphere
Mar 22, 04:17 PM
Just curious, Why?
In-car usage. I use my classic most in the car. I appreciate its tactile feedback. It would be awesome if I could use a Bluetooth stereo connection to play my music instead of a crappy FM adapter. I'd buy a new one if it had Bluetooth capability.
In-car usage. I use my classic most in the car. I appreciate its tactile feedback. It would be awesome if I could use a Bluetooth stereo connection to play my music instead of a crappy FM adapter. I'd buy a new one if it had Bluetooth capability.
iGav
Apr 12, 08:45 AM
IMO, if a gearbox has a setting where it will automatically shift gears for you and you don't have to touch it, it's an automatic gearbox.
Or is it a manual gearbox capable of automatic shifting? ;)
Also, Europeans favor driving experience over comfort.
If that was actually the case, diesels wouldn't be so popular. ;)
The clutches in most smaller cars (e.g. our MINIs) are light enough it's really not that much work.
But to be fair, it is still more though then pressing a brake pedal isn't it? ;)
Or is it a manual gearbox capable of automatic shifting? ;)
Also, Europeans favor driving experience over comfort.
If that was actually the case, diesels wouldn't be so popular. ;)
The clutches in most smaller cars (e.g. our MINIs) are light enough it's really not that much work.
But to be fair, it is still more though then pressing a brake pedal isn't it? ;)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 3, 01:39 PM
Volvo has recently launched a diesl hybrid (V60 Hybrid) with a claimed 124 US mpg
http://www.volvocars.com/uk/campaigns/hybrid/Pages/default.aspx
Also note seeing as we are an apple related board
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/motorshows/geneva-motor-show/264535/volvo_v60_diesel_plugin_hybrid.html
Very cool, a very impressive car - outstanding economy without sacrificing anything (except that it will be pretty expensive). 99% chance it won't make it here. :o
There have been plenty of diesel hybrids prototyped over the last few years, but they are just not making it to market. Hopefully that is beginning to change.
i haven't seen either in the flesh yet to be honest... GM selling the cruze in europe without a hatchback version for 2 years simply was a mistake
if you want to be successful in europe as mass car maker you have to:
1. offer a diesel
2. offer a hatchback if its a small car/ offer a station wagon if it's a large one
3. combine rule 1 and rule 2
4. offer them within 3 months of release
We'll see how the Jetta sells. I'm hoping I'm wrong about it moving downmarket, but it's a lot cheaper than the old one so it remains to be seen how they kept the quality up.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
The major difference between US and European car buyers is that Europeans are willing to buy an expensive small car, and Americans still associate size with price and quality. Small cars should be cheap and sparsely appointed, big cars are expensive and more feature-filled. This idea is changing, but only slowly.
By the way, I do like the Volvo C30 - it's a bit of an ageing design now but it still looks good and has a lot of power in T5 form. Kind of a yuppie-mobile though.
http://www.volvocars.com/uk/campaigns/hybrid/Pages/default.aspx
Also note seeing as we are an apple related board
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/motorshows/geneva-motor-show/264535/volvo_v60_diesel_plugin_hybrid.html
Very cool, a very impressive car - outstanding economy without sacrificing anything (except that it will be pretty expensive). 99% chance it won't make it here. :o
There have been plenty of diesel hybrids prototyped over the last few years, but they are just not making it to market. Hopefully that is beginning to change.
i haven't seen either in the flesh yet to be honest... GM selling the cruze in europe without a hatchback version for 2 years simply was a mistake
if you want to be successful in europe as mass car maker you have to:
1. offer a diesel
2. offer a hatchback if its a small car/ offer a station wagon if it's a large one
3. combine rule 1 and rule 2
4. offer them within 3 months of release
We'll see how the Jetta sells. I'm hoping I'm wrong about it moving downmarket, but it's a lot cheaper than the old one so it remains to be seen how they kept the quality up.
Here in the US, the sedan (saloon) is king, even on smaller cars like the Focus and Corolla. That is slowly beginning to change, but Americans still like three-box cars over hatchbacks. Personally I prefer hatchbacks and wagons, though larger cars still look good as sedans.
The major difference between US and European car buyers is that Europeans are willing to buy an expensive small car, and Americans still associate size with price and quality. Small cars should be cheap and sparsely appointed, big cars are expensive and more feature-filled. This idea is changing, but only slowly.
By the way, I do like the Volvo C30 - it's a bit of an ageing design now but it still looks good and has a lot of power in T5 form. Kind of a yuppie-mobile though.
