blybug
Jan 12, 06:21 PM
I'll tell you why I'd buy a MacBook Air or Thin or Light, and ideally it would be some tablet-style offspring/hybrid of a MacBook and iPhone...Medical Documentation. Here's (sort of) what we're using in my hospital now:
http://www.interiormall.com/images/cat/furn/COW20-CoverDW1_b.jpg
Except ours don't even look that elegant. It's called a "COW" for Computer On Wheels and it is the kludgiest most inconvenient way to move room to room and patient to patient. I can actually access our system by VNSea to my office computer from my hacked iPhone and get more reliable and consistent WiFi reception and UI than using these stupid Dell COWS. I'd buy a iPhoneMEGA or MacBooknano (iPad??!) to walk around with in a heartbeat. Even if the OS itself is limited, as long as it had some sort of Back To My Mac or VNC client on it, it would literally take the place of that ridiculous COW in my life.
http://www.interiormall.com/images/cat/furn/COW20-CoverDW1_b.jpg
Except ours don't even look that elegant. It's called a "COW" for Computer On Wheels and it is the kludgiest most inconvenient way to move room to room and patient to patient. I can actually access our system by VNSea to my office computer from my hacked iPhone and get more reliable and consistent WiFi reception and UI than using these stupid Dell COWS. I'd buy a iPhoneMEGA or MacBooknano (iPad??!) to walk around with in a heartbeat. Even if the OS itself is limited, as long as it had some sort of Back To My Mac or VNC client on it, it would literally take the place of that ridiculous COW in my life.
tuna
Mar 23, 11:08 AM
Haven't manufacturers been producing 240-250GB 1.8" iPod sized hard drives for years? I though that was part of the speculation of Apple cutting off the iPod Classics: bigger and bigger hard drives had become available but Apple was no longer updating.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:36 PM
Randy Ubillos, Chief Architect, Video Applications on stage. Demo FCP X live now. Beta version. �We hope it behaves.�
Well, there goes the hope of it being for sale anytime soon!
Oh well! Worth waiting a little longer, I guess.
Well, there goes the hope of it being for sale anytime soon!
Oh well! Worth waiting a little longer, I guess.
Icaras
Apr 19, 11:58 AM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and even moreso portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen
Which is why desktops won't die out.
Which is why desktops won't die out.
7on
Jul 18, 01:35 PM
I think the biggest problem is that most HD-DVDs use a WMV codec. And any WMV file with DRM is unplayable with osx. I highly doubt these files lack DRM. So OSX will probably not be able to playback HD-DVD disks. BR uses MPEG2 currently and will transition to .h264.
Apple released DVD-RAM with Power Macintoshes back in the day, why can't they release BTO BR drives? I see it more as a viable Data storage than video playback anyway.
Apple released DVD-RAM with Power Macintoshes back in the day, why can't they release BTO BR drives? I see it more as a viable Data storage than video playback anyway.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
miloblithe
Aug 29, 10:36 AM
That's the same line of thought prior to the MacBook release - everyone thought they would run core solo's in the base model. The Mini could be Merom but like most here I think it will have a Yonah and hopefully go back to the $499 US price point. Personally I'm hoping they will do a MacPro and only have one model with various processor optical drive configs. Say a 1.66GHz Core Duo 512MB RAM 80GB HDD Combo BT AP etc. Then optional 1.83/2.0 Yonah 100/120GB HDD Superdrive etc. That's just me though.
That would be interesting if Apple does go to a more BTO strategy rather than the good, better, best strategy. But I imagine BTO makes the most sense for pros, who know what they want, and good, better, best makes sense for consumers who don't necessarily understand, for instance, the difference between RAM and HD space.
That would be interesting if Apple does go to a more BTO strategy rather than the good, better, best strategy. But I imagine BTO makes the most sense for pros, who know what they want, and good, better, best makes sense for consumers who don't necessarily understand, for instance, the difference between RAM and HD space.
Panther71
Oct 21, 04:38 PM
I just received my Proporta aluminum-lined leather case. I got it from Amazon for $29.95 with free shipping. It is exactly what I was looking for in a case that will protect the screen when I have my Ipod Touch in my pocket. It is a quality built case at a very good price for a leather case.
Biscuit411
Apr 21, 11:56 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Good thing Al Franken is on the case...
Good thing Al Franken is on the case...
Homy
Jan 4, 06:11 AM
iLife '07 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FApple-Computer-iLife-07-Mac%2Fdp%2FB000B8UOU2%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1167869764%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dsoftware&tag=reality&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) and iWork '07 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FApple-Computer-iWork-07-Mac%2Fdp%2FB000BKE87U%2Fsr%3D1-2%2Fqid%3D1167869786%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dsoftware&tag=reality&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) are out on Amazon.
dongmin
Jan 12, 12:42 AM
Here is some info on the wireless power adaptor technlogy I mentioned previously that I believe will be incorporated into a new low power mac that does not ever need to be plugged in. There are two trains of thought. One is that it will be set atop a wireless power pad that will conduct the electricity a mere inch or two to 'charge' or power the mac without any cable or outside connectors and the other which has been demonstrated by a few other companies including involves electricity being sent through the air similar to a wireless signal, except the laptop actually charges without any wires at all - cordless electricity as it were.
Here's some links to some past posts discussing the technlogy.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/02/16/rumors-docking-and-charging-by-induction/
http://www.louisgray.com/live/2007/02/its-time-to-make-power-wireless-and.html
Finally, a company called Powercast at www.powercastco.com demonstrated this wireless power transfer not too long ago by lighting a bulb up with absolutely no wires. Pretty cool and inevitable if you ask me.
This is what I'm guessing will be the hot new product - the MacAir - no cords. Power without wires.
BFMApple has some patents that deal with induction-based charging for your i-gadgets:
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/02/15/patent-wireless-iphone-charging-station/
There's also wireless firewire that stirred a lot of discussion three years ago:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040511S0001
Here's some links to some past posts discussing the technlogy.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/02/16/rumors-docking-and-charging-by-induction/
http://www.louisgray.com/live/2007/02/its-time-to-make-power-wireless-and.html
Finally, a company called Powercast at www.powercastco.com demonstrated this wireless power transfer not too long ago by lighting a bulb up with absolutely no wires. Pretty cool and inevitable if you ask me.
This is what I'm guessing will be the hot new product - the MacAir - no cords. Power without wires.
BFMApple has some patents that deal with induction-based charging for your i-gadgets:
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/02/15/patent-wireless-iphone-charging-station/
There's also wireless firewire that stirred a lot of discussion three years ago:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040511S0001
mckvakk
Feb 24, 04:54 PM
My rather cramped set up.
I will buy a new, twice as wide desk as soon as i can get someone to help me transport it from IKEA:p
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2459671/IMG_1089.png
I will buy a new, twice as wide desk as soon as i can get someone to help me transport it from IKEA:p
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2459671/IMG_1089.png
CIA
Apr 12, 08:56 PM
50 years ago there were no computers. If you want to go back to the moviola, nobody is stopping you. You seem to think that sticking with outdated metaphors is inherently somehow better.
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing. The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
You may have never used iMovie but it is foolish to assume that none of us have. That idea that you can't edit in iMovie is nonsense, and absurd on the face of it.
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing. The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Anyway, you know what. Fine. You can have your new iMovie. All yours. I sure as hell can't use it. The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface. I want under the hood tweaks to make it faster. Cocoa?
VanNess
Jul 20, 02:27 AM
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
Ah, ok, thanks for the info. I never used Movielink and I'm not familiar with it. I've never steamed any content that would even approximate the length of a hollywood movie, with the possible exception of S. Jobs keynotes. So far, H264 seems to serve those very well. (Except for the first week or so, when it seems the server is bombarded.) In any event, I don't think that content is actually downloaded to disk as its streamed.
On the other hand, movie trailers (like Apple Quicktime trailers) are downloaded in the background to some secret location on the disk as they are watched, and, although they usually perform well, occasionally they hiccup (stall momentarily) for whatever reason (traffic, general internet latency), sometimes even the regular non-HD ones. So if Movielink has figured out a way to provide a bulletproof buffer for streaming high-quality (DVD) content over regular US DSL, great. Maybe Apple can one-up them with even higher, H264 quality.
But if the stream ever stalls, even momentarily, count me out. My gauge for judging (and accepting) any online Movie service is that it must meet or exceed the present terrestrial-based DVD experience. There is a local DVD rental store within 2 blocks of where I live. That modest, unassuming little establishment happens to be Apple's and Movielink's greatest competition in my book. They have to give me a compelling reason not to go there.
zwida
Sep 6, 08:42 PM
What planet are you on?
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
Earendil
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Maybe Apple just needs to lower its monitor prices to sane levels as opposed to the ridiculous prices that they currently stand at. Justify them all you want, if Apple really wants to push its monitors, those prices need to come down. They might have flew 3 years ago, but enough is enough.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
I just got a 22-inch LCD for $370 (US), and it's not a piece. Quite frankly, I can't really tell the difference. Plus it has better adjustments and I/O. It doesn't have the Apple look, and it only has 1050 horizontal lines of res but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me.
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:56 AM
Ah, great to see another person in their 30s who still very much enjoys the freedom and pleasures of the road. :D
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
"in comparison".
I'm 71. ;)
apb3
Aug 16, 03:14 PM
You know, I'd love a Sirius receiver on my iPod. I have the car and home hookup back home and love their line-up. Stern is just a bonus as I bought it before he came over.
The 1st Wave and AltNation channels are some of the biggest drivers for my iTunes purchases actually. "Oh, yeah! I remember that song back in college! [writes note on hand while swerving through traffic]"
Not much good to me where I am now (although I can verify that I can get the Sirius online stream cuz I have a US acct) but I wouldn't be able to buy a new one here anyway... Maybe trade some porn with donkeys for one "liberated" from Saudi or something with the locals, but that seems less than ethical and would get me in some trouble most likely.
The 1st Wave and AltNation channels are some of the biggest drivers for my iTunes purchases actually. "Oh, yeah! I remember that song back in college! [writes note on hand while swerving through traffic]"
Not much good to me where I am now (although I can verify that I can get the Sirius online stream cuz I have a US acct) but I wouldn't be able to buy a new one here anyway... Maybe trade some porn with donkeys for one "liberated" from Saudi or something with the locals, but that seems less than ethical and would get me in some trouble most likely.
jent
Apr 12, 11:13 PM
Is there a video of the announcement available?
wordoflife
Feb 28, 10:55 PM
First attempt to get everything in one shot.
Snip
Hardware in the sig
I think this is one of my most favorite overall setups in this thread.
Snip
Hardware in the sig
I think this is one of my most favorite overall setups in this thread.
Doraemon
Mar 18, 09:35 AM
I didn't sign either.
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
a) I don't think that market growth is necessarily good for Apple.
b) We don't need to save Apple. It's not endangered.
c) I wouldn't want a Commodore-type of computer. My TV is smaller than my displays. Besides, a TV cannot handle the high resolutions state-of-the-art video cards deliver.
d) With the eMac, Apple already has a good entry-level computer. What I'd like to see would be a <$1000 head-less iMac. But with the full range of features (so not a Commodore or whatever).
cleanup
Nov 27, 12:29 PM
Just got done framing (: took me a minute too.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
I like this. I really wish it didn't have the logo, though. Much classier as just a photograph, IMHO.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4916/photore.jpg
I like this. I really wish it didn't have the logo, though. Much classier as just a photograph, IMHO.
applefan289
Mar 24, 01:41 PM
anyone want to guess what we will see in the new imac?
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
twoodcc
Dec 2, 06:51 PM
^ depressing but true. desktop computer hardware taking a back seat to iphones :( sad day
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
well apple isn't showing up to macworld anymore, right?
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
well apple isn't showing up to macworld anymore, right?
