Braz0s
Mar 22, 10:22 PM
Haven't read all the comments so plz excuse if mentioned...
Plz put a mono switch on it like the new Nano. My wife is a Rubella baby so she's totally deaf in one ear. That mono switch really helped.
And it's software only - it should have always been there!
Plz put a mono switch on it like the new Nano. My wife is a Rubella baby so she's totally deaf in one ear. That mono switch really helped.
And it's software only - it should have always been there!
ZipZap
May 3, 04:48 AM
It seems like any time there's even a slight implication of any software being tuned to be easier to use, there's a barrage of negative comments lamenting how it's been "watered down."
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
I dont think this is elitism...
Perhaps we can just say that Lion will offer a new level of refinement for a Mac OS.
Lets hope the iOS uninstall is implemented as a real uninstall...otherwise what's the point.
What's with all this baseless elitism?
(Over uninstalling an app! Such a trite matter)
I see lots of people saying they'll stick with their version, or that it's the end of whatever paradigm they had before... why? Because it's what... "harder to use?" Who is that going to impress?
Not just for Lion, but this is exactly what happened with FCPX.
Which direction would the evolution of software go? Harder? Of course not...
I really wonder what the reasoning behind all this negativity is...
I dont think this is elitism...
Perhaps we can just say that Lion will offer a new level of refinement for a Mac OS.
Lets hope the iOS uninstall is implemented as a real uninstall...otherwise what's the point.
PBF
Apr 1, 11:54 AM
Already posted (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12299127&postcount=55) by another author.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a major PITA. Trying to delete folders is even worse than before with Launchpad crashing like crazy. But managed to do it anyway. Thanks for the tip. :D
Just out of curiosity, how do people even discover these things? Like having apps to wiggle first, then click and hold, then delete, etc. :confused:
---------------------------------------------------------
Yea it's a little buggy right now. You can delete apps the same as as before with some added frustration.
1. Press and hold, CMD+OPT+CTRL (so they all wiggle)
2. Next press and hold one app until they stop wiggling.
3. Now click the apps you want once to delete them.
4. Make sure you hold those 3 keys throughout all steps.
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a major PITA. Trying to delete folders is even worse than before with Launchpad crashing like crazy. But managed to do it anyway. Thanks for the tip. :D
Just out of curiosity, how do people even discover these things? Like having apps to wiggle first, then click and hold, then delete, etc. :confused:
antmarobel
Mar 31, 11:49 AM
Ok folks!!! Now try to manage your favorites in "Favorites Bar"!!! Try to change their places and see what happen!!! Pure madness!!!:D:D
Lyle
Mar 21, 09:23 AM
As seen on Twitter:
Obama has now fired more Tomahawk cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.
Obama has now fired more Tomahawk cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.
Agaetis Byrjun
Feb 21, 08:35 PM
Very nice.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
I'd say most of the stuff I do is indie rock, shoegazer and some electronic style stuff. No real strict genre.
I have two 24" HP monitors that are on their original stands and sit like that right out of the box. You can adjust the height but I like it at the lowest, that way I get a bit more sunlight in.
The other lone monitor is a 21" Viewsonic. That one I did remove the stock stand and now it's just sitting on a hard case that one of my microphones came in and is just leaning up against the wall. A bit ghetto but it doesn't look too bad.
What music genre do you dabble in? And what monitors are those? Do they sit that flush out of the box or did you hack the stand off in favour of some armature?
I'd say most of the stuff I do is indie rock, shoegazer and some electronic style stuff. No real strict genre.
I have two 24" HP monitors that are on their original stands and sit like that right out of the box. You can adjust the height but I like it at the lowest, that way I get a bit more sunlight in.
The other lone monitor is a 21" Viewsonic. That one I did remove the stock stand and now it's just sitting on a hard case that one of my microphones came in and is just leaning up against the wall. A bit ghetto but it doesn't look too bad.
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:10 PM
Cocoa, Grand Central, Open CL!!!
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
NicoleRichie
Apr 20, 01:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Only rare in the US. Most rentals I have had in the last year out of the US are stick. Taugt myself how to drive a manual by "borrowing" my friends dads Shelby mustang for let's say joy rides... Don't tell him, only my mates mom knows.
Only rare in the US. Most rentals I have had in the last year out of the US are stick. Taugt myself how to drive a manual by "borrowing" my friends dads Shelby mustang for let's say joy rides... Don't tell him, only my mates mom knows.
-Ken-
Mar 24, 01:02 PM
Excellent, now I can upgrade my Hackintosh's GPU.
macfan881
Sep 7, 09:46 PM
There has been a lot said here and elsewhere on what Apple is going to release. But let�s step back and look at the big picture for a moment and think through this process.
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
yes hd video will be huge but hds now are biger and cheaper to get the new mac pro u can get up to techniclay 3tbs with the new 700+ gig hds if you could get a movie and be able to burn it on your own for anything under 20 bucks i would im sure many others to with many computers now coming out with dvd burners
What we know:
1. Apple maintains the largest online movie trailer site on the internet. They have the technology to stream data in HD and they just bought a level 4 data center in March this year to storage an enormous amount of data. (I�ll get to this later)
2. HD downloads are enormous and storing them on your hard disk would fill up the disk in no time. So keeping the file for long periods of time is not an option.
3. Apple sells more laptops then desktops and laptops have a smaller hard drive with limited capacity, no one wants an external hd to carry along with their laptop, it would defeat the purpose of being portable.
4. Apple doesn�t make money on downloads, but selling the product that it runs on.
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
6. FrontRow is made for displaying on the TV, not a computer monitor.
7. People WILL NOT PAY $9.99 or $14.99 for a download of a movie, even with a burn option. DVDs can be bought at Wal-Mart or BestBuy for the same price and you get the cover and quality you want and deserve. ( I know a few mac fans will go out and buy whatever Apple puts out, but thinking of an average person )
8. Steve Jobs said in an interview that most people only watch live action movies 1 or 2 times with the exception of animation, but music they listen to over and over again. And he hates variable pricing for content.
So what does all this mean? I think we will see on Sept 12th a streaming rental service that runs off a new media device made to hook up to your TV and runs FrontRow with Showtime as a feature on it that looks a lot like the Movie Trailer section on FrontRow today, where you see the cover designs of the movie instead of a text. (Think about when you go to Blockbuster and all you see is cover designs, and a description on the back) With this service you will be able to see the cover design, the rating, run time, the description and preview a trailer of the movie. Then if you want you can �rent� it for $2.99. After watching the movie, the content is deleted; this would work a lot like pay-per-view. For music and photos, this device will wirelessly connect to your computer to stream music from iTunes and photos from iPhoto. The device will probably sell for around $149 - $299, depending on what it can do.
But who knows� I�m probably completing wrong and Apple will release a download movie site, charge $9.99 for a movie download that around 600 MB per download and take 2 hours to download and release an airport express with video output and charge $129 for it.
yes hd video will be huge but hds now are biger and cheaper to get the new mac pro u can get up to techniclay 3tbs with the new 700+ gig hds if you could get a movie and be able to burn it on your own for anything under 20 bucks i would im sure many others to with many computers now coming out with dvd burners
blakdragun
Feb 24, 06:43 PM
Here's my mbp setup.
nice clean setup.
nice clean setup.
Panther71
Oct 29, 09:02 PM
If you want to protect the glass, I suggest you check out a leather case that has an aluminum lining, like the one from Proporta. I am confident this case will protect the glass as good as any case will. The only problem is that this case is more than the $25 max limit.
Applespider
Jul 19, 04:39 PM
Wow, already up to 75% intel machines. So much for the stupid notion that nobody wants intel because there are still big apps that aren't universal.
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels which given that most of the Macs are Intels, isn't that surprising.
The OS X install base has around 940,000 Intel users and several million PPC users
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels which given that most of the Macs are Intels, isn't that surprising.
The OS X install base has around 940,000 Intel users and several million PPC users
bluewire
Sep 1, 12:04 PM
man have i been waiting for this one. the 12th would be great, have a shot at the iPod offer too. W00T
iJawn108
Nov 29, 03:25 PM
i dont know i might buy an itv if i buy a tv lol
i dont have one right now. my macbook is my tv/computer/gf lol
i dont have one right now. my macbook is my tv/computer/gf lol
gugy
Nov 29, 05:48 PM
.
Hi,
some ideas:
A) I think Apple wants to stay out of trouble with content providers. I think they will allow Elgato to add some DVR functionality to front row via their EyeTV software and hardware.
B) the USB port might be use for that.
C) good idea
D) I doubt. Apple like to keep things simple
Hi,
some ideas:
A) I think Apple wants to stay out of trouble with content providers. I think they will allow Elgato to add some DVR functionality to front row via their EyeTV software and hardware.
B) the USB port might be use for that.
C) good idea
D) I doubt. Apple like to keep things simple
Reventon
Nov 24, 04:40 PM
http://www.cloverleaf.ca/images/products/448/CloverLeafSmokedOysters.jpg
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
Mmm... I like oysters. :)
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
Mmm... I like oysters. :)
dmelgar
Apr 19, 11:09 AM
Does this mean a Mini update is right behind it?
doberman211
Mar 22, 06:37 PM
We'll just see what happens. I bought the 160 not too long ago so i won't be upgrading but it's good to know it's still around. 4571 songs of uncompressed audio and counting. gotta love the classics.
cmaier
Apr 2, 07:39 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
No light bleed, blemishes, dents, or scratches on my new 64GB AT&T or my friend's 64GB Verizon.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
No light bleed, blemishes, dents, or scratches on my new 64GB AT&T or my friend's 64GB Verizon.
triceretops
Mar 22, 10:53 PM
Is there an app in which the face of the iPod touch/iPhone has a digital scroll wheel on the bottom half and a screen on the top half to simulate the iPod Classic interface? Maybe that would be enough to satiate the holders on to the classic?
Hmmmmm:rolleyes:
Hmmmmm:rolleyes:
Earendil
Nov 27, 04:08 PM
Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.
I still am failing to see a counter point.
We both agree that Apple has a higher quality display, that id required by professionals. We both agree that the prices a year ago were a good price, and competative. Now you are making a claim that the competition has lowered their prices (linky?), and that this proves me wrong. I've already stated that my quick searching revealed no such compition in that price point half of what Apple's is, and have put the ball in your court to show me otherwise. Surely if you are making these claims you are aware of a product?
It is not hard to find 20" LCD monitors that cost twice as much as Apple's (Check out NEC's site for example). So I'm failing to see an example of a similarly specced wide LCD to show me exactly how out of whack Apple is. All I hear is "too expensive!" and "100% more!!".
Sure, I'd like them cheaper too, but I'm not going to scream foul without being able to back it up with something.
I still am failing to see a counter point.
We both agree that Apple has a higher quality display, that id required by professionals. We both agree that the prices a year ago were a good price, and competative. Now you are making a claim that the competition has lowered their prices (linky?), and that this proves me wrong. I've already stated that my quick searching revealed no such compition in that price point half of what Apple's is, and have put the ball in your court to show me otherwise. Surely if you are making these claims you are aware of a product?
It is not hard to find 20" LCD monitors that cost twice as much as Apple's (Check out NEC's site for example). So I'm failing to see an example of a similarly specced wide LCD to show me exactly how out of whack Apple is. All I hear is "too expensive!" and "100% more!!".
Sure, I'd like them cheaper too, but I'm not going to scream foul without being able to back it up with something.
No comments:
Post a Comment