gugy
Nov 29, 11:09 PM
Reading through all the expectations in this thread has me thinking that there are going to be some veeeery disappointed people on the day this is announced.
I'm guessing it'll be something like Airport Express, but for video. With a Front Row interface and a remote. Watch videos from you iTunes library, browse the iTunes store, subscribe to video podcasts, watch streaming movie trailers. Maybe a built-in web browser. If we're lucky, it will be able to browse and play video from YouTube or other video sites. That's all I'm expecting, anyway.
you are right for version 1.0.
iTV will evolve into other many things as the time goes by. Just like iTunes 1.0 and look what iTunes is today.
I agree with you that iTV will be very straight forward when it comes out, but the potential is there.
I'm guessing it'll be something like Airport Express, but for video. With a Front Row interface and a remote. Watch videos from you iTunes library, browse the iTunes store, subscribe to video podcasts, watch streaming movie trailers. Maybe a built-in web browser. If we're lucky, it will be able to browse and play video from YouTube or other video sites. That's all I'm expecting, anyway.
you are right for version 1.0.
iTV will evolve into other many things as the time goes by. Just like iTunes 1.0 and look what iTunes is today.
I agree with you that iTV will be very straight forward when it comes out, but the potential is there.
ingenious
Mar 26, 03:47 PM
...For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform...
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
its my understanding that apple made this browser BEFORE MSIE was pulled from the mac. M$ pulled IE because they believed Safari was better and faster and could better serve the mac. it was also part of a marketing plan by M$ to remove IE as a stand alone browser from Win and Mac. Think before you post and do your homework. The rest of use don't want to read something that's not true or thot out.
macintel4me
Sep 1, 03:29 PM
Ignore the name Mac Pro, People I give you the 23" iMac!!!
That is soooooooooooooooooooo beautiful!!!!
Except you forgot the FrontRow IR port and that's at 30" and a 23" according to the description. :p
That is soooooooooooooooooooo beautiful!!!!
Except you forgot the FrontRow IR port and that's at 30" and a 23" according to the description. :p
theBB
Jul 20, 08:00 PM
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.
Well, if you are going to burn it to a DVD so that you can watch it on your TV, then you have to wait until the whole movie downloads. That's a hassle, but otherwise I would have to buy another computer to hook it up to my TV. No, thanks, unless Apple comes up with a cheap appliance.
Well, if you are going to burn it to a DVD so that you can watch it on your TV, then you have to wait until the whole movie downloads. That's a hassle, but otherwise I would have to buy another computer to hook it up to my TV. No, thanks, unless Apple comes up with a cheap appliance.
pyramid6
Apr 26, 02:28 PM
...
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
The store is called the App Store. You can't copy someones store name.
...
Yes you can, that's why you trademark your name. If it is trademarked you cannot copy someones name. If it is not, you can. Doesn't make it right, but that is the way it works.
alfagta
Apr 1, 04:16 PM
Faster? Not so sure. More stable? Definitely. All of my main bugs have been fixed aside from the full screen apps on dual screens.
So I guess we won�t see any new features� Apple is busy polishing what we�ve got now�:/
So I guess we won�t see any new features� Apple is busy polishing what we�ve got now�:/
Chupa Chupa
Sep 1, 01:19 PM
Is there really a big market for a 23" iMac @ 2000? I hope this rumor is bogus. I'd much rather see Apple come out with a headless Gaming mid-tower with a Core 2 Duo Extreme and X1600 card. Dual HD bays and one optical bay. AP/BT built in. 3 PCIe slots (one used by X1600). I think that would would fill a gap Apple has in their consumer line-up right now.
*LTD*
Mar 27, 06:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
On screen buttons and dpads are terrible. Street fighter on the iphone was really hard to control. Buttons are a requirement for any gaming console.
Tell that to the hundreds (at times over a thousand) reviewers who are raving about it.
Yeah, "terrible" my ass.
Doubters need to wrap their head around this new concept. They can start accepting this new paradigm for the standard setting phenomenon it is (and I don't mean the 3DS, LOL), or get left behind.
On screen buttons and dpads are terrible. Street fighter on the iphone was really hard to control. Buttons are a requirement for any gaming console.
Tell that to the hundreds (at times over a thousand) reviewers who are raving about it.
Yeah, "terrible" my ass.
Doubters need to wrap their head around this new concept. They can start accepting this new paradigm for the standard setting phenomenon it is (and I don't mean the 3DS, LOL), or get left behind.
CaptMurdock
Nov 25, 02:52 PM
For my son's X-Box...
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/88/53/70/11/0088537011661_300X300.jpg
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/88/53/70/11/0088537011661_300X300.jpg
antmarobel
Apr 1, 03:15 PM
Were them two apps downloaded via the Mac App Store by any chance?
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
You might consider yourself lucky. Mine have no "X" at all:mad:
kjr39
Oct 23, 06:52 AM
Sigh.
Okay fine, I guess I'll buy one of these new fancy MBP with a C2D processor instead of continuing to wait for the 12" G5 PB...
Okay fine, I guess I'll buy one of these new fancy MBP with a C2D processor instead of continuing to wait for the 12" G5 PB...
evilgEEk
Sep 6, 07:44 PM
$19.99 for a downloaded movie, that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way I would ever pay that much when I can go buy a new release DVD for $12-14.99. Amazon's service will fail, especially if Apple does indeed release a Movie Store.
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
chabig
Sep 6, 10:53 AM
They are expensive - slow, with a lack of hard disc capacity when compared against the new iMacs and existing PowerBooks ( which I'm sure are also about to go Dual Core 2.
There is no lack of hard disk capacity. Who says the hard disk has to be in the same enclosure as the CPU?
There is no lack of hard disk capacity. Who says the hard disk has to be in the same enclosure as the CPU?
skunk
Mar 27, 04:57 AM
Well, the US controls the AWACSThe AWACS involved are owned and operated by NATO. There may not even be US personnel on board.
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 02:09 PM
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
gugy
Nov 28, 11:24 AM
Is anybody surprise by this?
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
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!
DoFoT9
May 8, 03:22 AM
ive completely forgotten about this.. i wanna do it but i dont want my baby imac over heating :(
KindredMAC
Nov 27, 08:12 PM
If you don't need color accuracy, DO NOT BUY AN APPLE MONITOR, there are cheaper monitors that, though less accurate, will satisfy you just fine.
Funny that you say "accurate" color.....
Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.
Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.
True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.
Funny that you say "accurate" color.....
Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.
Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.
True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.
ghostlyorb
Mar 25, 04:49 PM
I might actually buy that adaptor now....
ghostface147
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Can it run crysis 2?
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 04:46 PM
On the server, AMD has inexpensive 12-core, 4-way CPUs since some time. Now going for 16-core with Bulldozer (well, now it will be more like 16-core integer/8-core floating point).
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
AMD's CPU's are trash and they're cheap for a reason.
Oh and for someone who doesn't use Windows you sure seem interested in Windows only API's. Love all of those OpenCL applications you listed by the way. ;)
The absolute bargain now are the 8-core, 4-way CPUs. You can have a 32-core machine for very little money.
The the next Atom will have a DirectX 10.1 GPU, meanwhile Bobcat Fusion already has DirectX 11 hardware and OpenCL.
AMD's CPU's are trash and they're cheap for a reason.
Oh and for someone who doesn't use Windows you sure seem interested in Windows only API's. Love all of those OpenCL applications you listed by the way. ;)
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?
Kiwi Jones
Mar 24, 03:21 PM
So, this doesn't mean it would be possible to upgrade a 2010 15" MBP's GPU from the INTEL HD graphics to anything different does it??
This INTEL HD sucks really bad...
This INTEL HD sucks really bad...
No comments:
Post a Comment