Ktulu
Jan 1, 07:02 PM
http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/welcome2007_20070101.jpg
This year better be good!
Where did you find that image? Are there others?
This year better be good!
Where did you find that image? Are there others?
SchneiderMan
Sep 16, 06:22 PM
The Incipio DermaSHOT would have better quality, right?
It should I don't know really. It might have more silicone in it which is what you want.
It should I don't know really. It might have more silicone in it which is what you want.
Dunepilot
Nov 15, 08:25 AM
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
They're going to need every ounce of grunt they can find. Especially when HD video content becomes the norm - encoding that takes some serious brawn and consumers aren't willing to wait for their results, they don't understand the processes behind it like Pros do, consumers want it all done right now so the quicker we get software over to multi-thread aware the better.
Yes, I hope they do start to properly multithread consumer apps, as in many ways this is overdue for Mac users (anyone remember the 533MHz dual-G4 powermac?!).
One thing that's puzzled me for ages is the fact that the encoding speed in iTunes fell off when I switched from encoding CDs as mp3 to AAC files.
If I'm not mistaken AAC-encoding is done on only one of my 867MHz G4 processors, not both, as was the case for mp3-encoding? I'm sure I read that somewhere.
SMM
Nov 15, 06:40 PM
Just asking a question, understand. But, is there a need to have more memory as twice as many requesting sources are accessing the memory pool?
stcanard
Nov 30, 10:47 AM
Another way to ask this question: If Apple decided to compete head-to-head with this feature, what should they do differently?
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Eidorian
Aug 24, 10:16 PM
Update please! My brother will switch immediately.
GregA
Dec 29, 07:10 PM
If it doesn�t have HD there wont be much demand for iTunes download.
I entirely DISagree :)
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
I entirely DISagree :)
It's the cost and convenience that will determine how successful iTS downloads are. I would hope for DVD quality (including surround sound).
One day I'll have a HD screen and I'll be wanting to use a HD service.. so it'd be good for Apple to have a plan there for that :)
iJawn108
Aug 24, 08:11 PM
I really need some new macsso i can start using.
Conroe iMac would be an imediate purchase from me.
Conroe iMac would be an imediate purchase from me.
twoodcc
Aug 26, 12:04 AM
...also known as The New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box!
The problem with the all-in-one form factor of the iMacIntel is that when the LCD dies - you have a good computer that you can't use. And if the computer dies - you have a good screen that you can't use.
Or, more likely, when the computer is obsolete you have a good screen that you can't use.
Apple needs something between the horribly constrained MiniMac, and the preposterously huge ProMac.
A Conroe (64-bit, single-socket, dual-core) system would fit the bill.... When will The Steve see the light?
i agree.....when will they start listening to you?
The problem with the all-in-one form factor of the iMacIntel is that when the LCD dies - you have a good computer that you can't use. And if the computer dies - you have a good screen that you can't use.
Or, more likely, when the computer is obsolete you have a good screen that you can't use.
Apple needs something between the horribly constrained MiniMac, and the preposterously huge ProMac.
A Conroe (64-bit, single-socket, dual-core) system would fit the bill.... When will The Steve see the light?
i agree.....when will they start listening to you?
theBB
Aug 29, 09:40 PM
Huh? Why would a BR drive make any more heat than a 12x or 24x DVD drive? Hint: it won't. It's a disc that is the same size and weight and spinning at the same speeds... the only change is the wavelength of the laser reading the disc. Decoding the data will take some juice, which will make some heat, but no more than any other CPU intensive task.
Some of the reading, decoding, DRM, error control tasks will certainly happen in the drive itself, rather than CPU. More bits to process and faster data to send through the bus would certainly create more heat.
Some of the reading, decoding, DRM, error control tasks will certainly happen in the drive itself, rather than CPU. More bits to process and faster data to send through the bus would certainly create more heat.
drewyboy
May 2, 04:46 PM
You'd probably appreciate this app: http://onnati.net/apptrap/
Thanks for the heads up. I've been using App Zapper, which is seems is basically the same thing. But I keep downloading the trial :) A free solution is nice.
Thanks for the heads up. I've been using App Zapper, which is seems is basically the same thing. But I keep downloading the trial :) A free solution is nice.
lynfordd
Jan 13, 03:46 PM
Could it be this is what Apple has done to work with the new Sprint
WiMAX service. To start this month around the USA!
WiMAX service. To start this month around the USA!
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
rstansby
Sep 14, 11:48 AM
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 10:43 PM
Yep. And Milk. Steve Jobs will climb down your chimney, eat the cookies, and pour the milk into any PCs he finds in your house :)
Well he won't find any PCs! Our house is PC free. We have a PowerMac G5, iMac G5, Powerbook G4, and a MacBook. He would be very happy :D
Well he won't find any PCs! Our house is PC free. We have a PowerMac G5, iMac G5, Powerbook G4, and a MacBook. He would be very happy :D
kungming2
Jan 11, 09:38 PM
I actually like the name. Anyone else? :D
SMM
Nov 15, 08:47 AM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
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.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:23 AM
If we are gonna base the present of potential then logically you should be going for Holographic disc since they have potential to bring out a single layer 300 gb disc at the end of 2006...
Or is that what you meant by HVD?
UMM... of course you should base desicions on the potential of a system, of course within a timeframe. I mean the potential of my Powerbook isn't nearly as great as a MacBook Pro, so that why I wouldn't buy a Powerbook right now ;) . Its not based on cost, cause I can get a powerbook at much less, but just the fact that while the MacBook is only faster for universal apps, so really its mostly slower due to rosetta, and it has no other upgrades..... well there seems to be little advantage to pick it .... OHH WAIT it has the potential to be much faster in the future.... I forgot about that...
Or is that what you meant by HVD?
UMM... of course you should base desicions on the potential of a system, of course within a timeframe. I mean the potential of my Powerbook isn't nearly as great as a MacBook Pro, so that why I wouldn't buy a Powerbook right now ;) . Its not based on cost, cause I can get a powerbook at much less, but just the fact that while the MacBook is only faster for universal apps, so really its mostly slower due to rosetta, and it has no other upgrades..... well there seems to be little advantage to pick it .... OHH WAIT it has the potential to be much faster in the future.... I forgot about that...
fall3n
Sep 1, 11:52 AM
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
iOzzie
Mar 22, 10:06 PM
Long live the Classic.
My 160 is almost full, put me down for a refresh :)
My 160 is almost full, put me down for a refresh :)
treichert
Apr 13, 04:05 AM
I read about the new iCal before updating, and actually saved the old iCal from DP1 and copied it over after updating to DP2. It worked just fine, though it's interesting to note that the 'ugly' DP2 version was much smaller in size than the original DP1 version. DP1 iCal was over 40mb, while the new & ugly iCal was only around 13mb.
Oh well, I still happily sacrificed the extra space for a more usable interface.
How exactly was it more usable?
The only thing that changed is the color, the layout is exactly the same.
Oh well, I still happily sacrificed the extra space for a more usable interface.
How exactly was it more usable?
The only thing that changed is the color, the layout is exactly the same.
DannyBres
Nov 24, 03:46 AM
Not really, The reason I spent the money on Oakleys is because from what I've read and seen, Oakley's are tough and will last you years. But also if I travel and don't wish to wear them I want to put them somewhere where they will not be crushed, or drowned, or broken.
I'm also planning on going into the Coast Guard, So if/when I travel or etc, I want to take great care of my equipment & personal belongings.
I got that size because it was the smallest water proof size, I also plan on getting another pair someday.
When I spend $200.00 on a pair of sunglasses, When they are not on my head, I want them put away.
Sorry why do you need to keep then dry?! I'm sure they will get wet if you are a coast guard! and how much was that case?
My last purchase was...........
http://www.thegoodride.com/images/stories/2011/burton-boots/moto/burton-moto-brown.jpg
I'm also planning on going into the Coast Guard, So if/when I travel or etc, I want to take great care of my equipment & personal belongings.
I got that size because it was the smallest water proof size, I also plan on getting another pair someday.
When I spend $200.00 on a pair of sunglasses, When they are not on my head, I want them put away.
Sorry why do you need to keep then dry?! I'm sure they will get wet if you are a coast guard! and how much was that case?
My last purchase was...........
http://www.thegoodride.com/images/stories/2011/burton-boots/moto/burton-moto-brown.jpg
TerryJ
Jul 14, 12:12 PM
I don't see any reason any manufacture would cripple their own storage capacity when they obviously have other options. If its no for the first generation of discs and players, then coroporate rigmroll is the reason to blame for HD-DVD winning out because that is just STUPID.
I agree. It's really stupid.
If Blu-ray studios authored their discs in VC-1 and DD+ or TruHD... the whole HD DVD picture/sound "advantage" would be moot. But they are not. (At least, not yet anyway.)
One possibility is that they are just trying to rush stuff out the door (to counter HD DVD's time advantage), and it's easier/faster to author in MPEG2 (with existing tools). At least they can say "we have product out there", even though that product sucks.
But apparently not wanting to use a Microsoft codec is another.
-Terry
I agree. It's really stupid.
If Blu-ray studios authored their discs in VC-1 and DD+ or TruHD... the whole HD DVD picture/sound "advantage" would be moot. But they are not. (At least, not yet anyway.)
One possibility is that they are just trying to rush stuff out the door (to counter HD DVD's time advantage), and it's easier/faster to author in MPEG2 (with existing tools). At least they can say "we have product out there", even though that product sucks.
But apparently not wanting to use a Microsoft codec is another.
-Terry
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário