Multimedia
Sep 10, 06:31 PM
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
coal
Sep 26, 09:41 AM
No iPhone for me then. Cingular blows, we're leaving in December when our contract is up. They have to the the worst cell company in the US, both customer service and the actual cell service
Agreed. From the reviews coming from JP Power and the like, those aren't merely opinions but generally accepted as true traits of Cingular as a company. What do you really expect though from a company that aquired half of its customers through purchase? They basically doubled their user base by acquiring AT&T Wireless and not through honest signups of people enticed by their good service and reputation.
Stan Sigman is seriously the anti-Steve Jobs.
Anyhow, it would be easily unlockable for use on T-Mobile here in the U.S. as well as any of the GSM carriers abroad. At most it would be a $10-$15 charge at your local independent phone dealer.
Agreed. From the reviews coming from JP Power and the like, those aren't merely opinions but generally accepted as true traits of Cingular as a company. What do you really expect though from a company that aquired half of its customers through purchase? They basically doubled their user base by acquiring AT&T Wireless and not through honest signups of people enticed by their good service and reputation.
Stan Sigman is seriously the anti-Steve Jobs.
Anyhow, it would be easily unlockable for use on T-Mobile here in the U.S. as well as any of the GSM carriers abroad. At most it would be a $10-$15 charge at your local independent phone dealer.
Chundles
Aug 31, 11:02 PM
http://www.apple.com/movies
403 error forbidden!!!! WEHOOOOO the pot of gold
WOW! That's the first time today I've seen that link posted. Welcome to a few years ago.
403 error forbidden!!!! WEHOOOOO the pot of gold
WOW! That's the first time today I've seen that link posted. Welcome to a few years ago.
wywern209
Apr 25, 06:44 PM
ehh, i don't think much will change from the unibody we have this yr. there might be some infusion of liquid metal for sturdiness but besides that, i don't think much will change. on the other hand, USB3 will be standard next yr and maybe some stuff will be out to take advantage of lightpeak. and i seriously doubt that we will have super highres stuff next year for the laptops. I anticipate higher res ACDs but nothing more.
Macnoviz
Sep 5, 02:25 AM
an airport express that can stream video... could I be any less underwhelmed? :rolleyes:
I love those kind of reactions, just look one time at this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500), and you'll know what I mean
Kim K. may be soon following
Kim Kardashian and Kris
.jpg "Kim Kardashian and Kris")
Kim Kardashian and Kris
got married and all of her
Kim Kardashian Is Not Moving
Kim Kardashian and Kris
Kim Kardashian#39;s wedding plans
Kim Kardashian and BF Kris
kim kardashian sex tape1 Kim
kim kardashian and kris
Kim Kardashian amp; Kris
Kim Kardashian#39;s wedding plans
Kris Humphries Picture
Inside Hot Kim Kardashian#39;s $1
I love those kind of reactions, just look one time at this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500), and you'll know what I mean
Ricard
Aug 23, 06:45 PM
Creative is only worth $500 million, how come Apple didn't just buy them?
Because... then you will have to beef-up the reclycling program to get rid of Creative's garbage products... the clean up process will cost more than the big bucks that Apple is paying now.
Because... then you will have to beef-up the reclycling program to get rid of Creative's garbage products... the clean up process will cost more than the big bucks that Apple is paying now.
aegisdesign
Aug 24, 04:47 AM
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
Not really. In both situations, the company that "lost" and paid out also received back some technology for their cash. In the current case there are other reasons why it's an ok deal for Apple beyond just the patent licence.
Not really. In both situations, the company that "lost" and paid out also received back some technology for their cash. In the current case there are other reasons why it's an ok deal for Apple beyond just the patent licence.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 14, 02:42 PM
and what happened to that Apple patent for thousands of small camera embedded on the LCD?
Dont expect it to see the light for atleast 2-3 years minimum. Any company wud like to get it`s idea patented asap. A minor lag in getting a patent could prove disastrous. Apple has already been punched in the face by creative just coz they got the patent earlier than Apple.
Dont expect it to see the light for atleast 2-3 years minimum. Any company wud like to get it`s idea patented asap. A minor lag in getting a patent could prove disastrous. Apple has already been punched in the face by creative just coz they got the patent earlier than Apple.
muncyweb
Mar 23, 06:31 PM
Gotta keep the revenue flowing ya know..
De facto U.S. Senators asked Apple? Who are the servants in this scenario? Who is the injured party? Punishing one for the irresponsibility of another, tis the American way.
NOT.
Participate in lawful governments like the NCAR (ncrepublic.org (http://www.ncrepublic.org))
De facto U.S. Senators asked Apple? Who are the servants in this scenario? Who is the injured party? Punishing one for the irresponsibility of another, tis the American way.
NOT.
Participate in lawful governments like the NCAR (ncrepublic.org (http://www.ncrepublic.org))
ezekielrage_99
Sep 4, 10:55 PM
WO0t! PowerBook G5 tuesday after next!
I never get sick of that, 12 month later and still is funny :D
I never get sick of that, 12 month later and still is funny :D
Trekkie
Aug 24, 08:02 AM
I'm glad it's over, but that being said the day Creative decided to sue instead of innovate I vowed to never, ever buy a product from them again.
Cpt.N00B
Apr 25, 02:50 PM
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
I doubt they will make optical drive external and have SSD as default. The price of SSD is still very expensive for its capacity. And taking out the optical loses part of the pro feature. (Ultra-large MBA? haha)
Anyway, I would love to see a new case design. The current MBPs get scratched too easily, maybe a harder material (may be more expensive though). Better screen can be pretty nice as well.. :))
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
I doubt they will make optical drive external and have SSD as default. The price of SSD is still very expensive for its capacity. And taking out the optical loses part of the pro feature. (Ultra-large MBA? haha)
Anyway, I would love to see a new case design. The current MBPs get scratched too easily, maybe a harder material (may be more expensive though). Better screen can be pretty nice as well.. :))
shecky
Sep 14, 10:14 AM
Not happening on the 24th fo any reason - photo, computer, or other wise.
you can feel free to go ahead and explain yourself in your next post instead of just mindlessly making statements with nothing to back them up. thanks.
you can feel free to go ahead and explain yourself in your next post instead of just mindlessly making statements with nothing to back them up. thanks.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:10 PM
Agreed. The U.S. is pretty much behind everyone else as far as cell phone technology goes. Do I care? No. My cell phone takes and gives calls. Who cares if it can take 30MP photos and watch steaming TV and movies and play Crysis at 120fps and pay my bills and rob convenient stores and solve world hunger? When I get a new cell phone and the salesman starts running off at the mouth at how cool it is and all the groovy things it does, I stop him and ask, "can I call people on it?" If the answer is yes, then I'm happy. :D
LOL I just need a phone that has decent service in my area, a decent camera phone, text messaging, and I'm set. It doesn't hurt if it looks cool, either. But I don't really care about 3G right now. Hardly anyone has a 3G network here in Denver.
LOL I just need a phone that has decent service in my area, a decent camera phone, text messaging, and I'm set. It doesn't hurt if it looks cool, either. But I don't really care about 3G right now. Hardly anyone has a 3G network here in Denver.
GFLPraxis
Sep 5, 12:02 AM
New iMacs? Are you freakin kidding me? I just bought a damn iMac and now there is already new ones! Pffff...
Then you haven't been paying attention. We've KNOWN new iMacs were coming in September ever since Intel announced Core 2 Duo was coming in September, THREE MONTHS AGO. I've been waiting three months for the Core 2 Duo iMac update.
Then you haven't been paying attention. We've KNOWN new iMacs were coming in September ever since Intel announced Core 2 Duo was coming in September, THREE MONTHS AGO. I've been waiting three months for the Core 2 Duo iMac update.
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses ? unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses ? unless he actually hurts someone.
Dmac77
Apr 24, 11:54 PM
Sorry, but I'm not. I try and avoid idiots on the highway. But why do I get the feeling that you are going to tell me that driving 90+ is perfectly safe cause you are such a wonderful driver.:rolleyes:
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
Because I am going to. I'm a completely safe driver (even when doing 90 or above) until I run into some dunderhead who has to enforce the speed limit themselves. Had that woman just moved like everyone else did, I would have never had to cut her off in order to punish her. And yes I did have to punish her, because she needed to be taught her dang place on the road.
EDIT: @adk - yes I am 16, however in this situation my mother was in the car and actually encouraged me to cut the idiot off. So it's not just an age based thing.
-Don
dr Dunkel
Mar 30, 01:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm 100% with M$ on this one. Apple's case would never hold here.
I'm 100% with M$ on this one. Apple's case would never hold here.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
rtdunham
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
... Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue (by ticketing more DUI drivers)....
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
JoeG4
Apr 25, 12:08 AM
Wow.
I have a return rant for you: People that tailgate me. I have a 340hp car, so whatever speed I'm doing, I'm probably doing for a good reason.
No, I'm not going to pull over on a 25mph, really bumpy one lane street so you can roar by at 5 over the speed limit.
I think proper etiquette for passing is ONLY to flash your high beams a few times. If that doesn't work, take a chill pill man - there's just not much you can do about it at the time. Tailgating is an offense that should be punishable by a tazering or something, it's unsafe and idiotic among other things
I have a return rant for you: People that tailgate me. I have a 340hp car, so whatever speed I'm doing, I'm probably doing for a good reason.
No, I'm not going to pull over on a 25mph, really bumpy one lane street so you can roar by at 5 over the speed limit.
I think proper etiquette for passing is ONLY to flash your high beams a few times. If that doesn't work, take a chill pill man - there's just not much you can do about it at the time. Tailgating is an offense that should be punishable by a tazering or something, it's unsafe and idiotic among other things
mrgreen4242
Sep 5, 02:57 PM
They already sell Showtime Shows on iTunes
Ya, but not movies. They get certain distrobution rights that may cover some kind of download service (they have PPV/VoD broadcast rights, for example). They may be able to get a decent library of downloadable movies for a price that works for Apple... the fact there are Showtime shows on iTunes certainly shows they are willing to work with the iTMS, and the OP may be on to something...
In any event, unless it's HD (720p is fine) I'm not interested. For that matter, when they give me Lost in HD (and a good way to get it to my TV) I'll check out the TV shows.
Ya, but not movies. They get certain distrobution rights that may cover some kind of download service (they have PPV/VoD broadcast rights, for example). They may be able to get a decent library of downloadable movies for a price that works for Apple... the fact there are Showtime shows on iTunes certainly shows they are willing to work with the iTMS, and the OP may be on to something...
In any event, unless it's HD (720p is fine) I'm not interested. For that matter, when they give me Lost in HD (and a good way to get it to my TV) I'll check out the TV shows.
imikem
Sep 9, 08:29 PM
The Yonah is not related to Intel's big disaster chip, the Pentium D 810, but was botched to the point that the engineers turned off EMT64!
Really? I had understood that Yonah was close architecture wise to the previous Pentium M, while Merom represents the first "true" Core architecture.
Cheers.
Really? I had understood that Yonah was close architecture wise to the previous Pentium M, while Merom represents the first "true" Core architecture.
Cheers.
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 11:10 AM
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
MacPro will have Woodcrest in dual configs, but i'd expect to see Conroe in the low end.
MacPro's: Now with Intel Core 2 and Xeon Processors.
Merom in the iMac. If there is not a big difference between the Merom and Conroe(which I doubt there will be) it would make sense to go with the chip with lower power consumption for better temps.
In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:
MacPro will have Woodcrest in dual configs, but i'd expect to see Conroe in the low end.
MacPro's: Now with Intel Core 2 and Xeon Processors.
Merom in the iMac. If there is not a big difference between the Merom and Conroe(which I doubt there will be) it would make sense to go with the chip with lower power consumption for better temps.
No comments:
Post a Comment