zin
Mar 30, 12:25 PM
Yep i have few of those...One is 24"
Not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but I found it really funny. :D
Not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but I found it really funny. :D
winmacguy
Aug 23, 11:56 PM
A little-known company, and that was to create it's product. If apple buys one of their largest competitors, that will raise a few eyebrows.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
markw10
Sep 14, 10:27 AM
I'm hoping for a MBP. It'll be my first Mac. My son just started college and we were going to buy him a Mac Mini. Then I heard about new imacs coming and waited it out and I found that to be a better value than a mac mini. Well he just got it a week ago and it's great! Now I've decided to switch from Windows to Mac and will get a MBP but am waiting for the next generation. I was disappointed it didn't come last week but maybe the 24th. Isn't it unusual for Apple to have something like this on a Sunday? I hear so much about Tuesdays but as other's have said maybe the 19th. I've heard estimates of as late as January becuase of a meron shortage. I can't wait that long to switch to Mac! :)
johndoejohndoes
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
What about Appp Store? Huh?
Both parties look like idiots for real.
Stop arguing over a generic term.
Both parties look like idiots for real.
Stop arguing over a generic term.
OllyW
Mar 30, 11:57 AM
That is great coming from a company who has Windows trade marked.
So?
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
So?
The other company has got Apple trade marked. They are both in common use but are protected when used in the computer industry.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/trademarks/usage/general.aspx
whooleytoo
Oct 12, 03:58 PM
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:44 AM
quad core macbook pro anyone ?Probably not for two more years. :( It's not even mentioned in any of the published Intel roadmaps yet.
dst98
Apr 30, 01:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
When do you estimate they will come out with the redesigned exterior?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just hope they don't decide to redesign the iMac the beginning of next year like they plan to do with the Macbooks.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
When do you estimate they will come out with the redesigned exterior?
levitynyc
Sep 9, 11:20 AM
No one who needs powerful graphics could go for anything except maybe the 24". The x1600 is pretty low-end for a mid-range desktop by now, and the nvidea 7600 is not bad but certainly not a powerhouse. And why would you say that the imacs are more "impressive, solid, and reliable" than the mac pros? Better values, maybe, but more impressive, solid, and reliable? :confused:
AMEN
Do you realize the Dell XPS 700 is capable of running 2 Nvidea GeForce - 1GB 7950 GX2 Quad SLI card for a total of 2 GB of Video
The fact that the new 24" Imac is only capable of handling a 256MB Video card is an embarassment as far as I am concered.
AMEN
Do you realize the Dell XPS 700 is capable of running 2 Nvidea GeForce - 1GB 7950 GX2 Quad SLI card for a total of 2 GB of Video
The fact that the new 24" Imac is only capable of handling a 256MB Video card is an embarassment as far as I am concered.
OdduWon
Sep 13, 09:24 PM
Sorry man, this is MacRumors. If you don't like talking about rumored products and such, sign up for an account on MacFacts. :p :cool:
The mock-up looks cool - definitely something that I could see Apple designing. It bares quite a similarity though to LG's Chocolate phone...
thats because they knew apple TelePod was about to come out so they dumped their on the market first
:rolleyes:
The mock-up looks cool - definitely something that I could see Apple designing. It bares quite a similarity though to LG's Chocolate phone...
thats because they knew apple TelePod was about to come out so they dumped their on the market first
:rolleyes:
Satori
Apr 22, 01:37 AM
I really hope this happens but I have a feeling that it will be hobbled in some way. If it runs from an iTunes master copy of songs then it might preclude people uploading music that has been ripped from CDs or bought somewhere else (like Amazon).
ValSalva
Apr 30, 01:10 PM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
CalfCanuck
Sep 14, 11:35 AM
I discussed much of this in the original page 2 thread, but all the Apple Pro software exists to sell the expensive top of the line hardware. The philosophy behind Aperture is fantastic for photographers, although the beta version called 1.0 had far too many blemishes.
Regarding Aperture v2, in the last 10 months I'm sure that the development team has finally debugged the memory leaks and redesigned the database / keyword functions so these are quicker. I also expect the ability to support multiple libraries across different drives. Plus the "new" features that they will surprise us with!
Despite it's obvious flaws, I've gambled on Aperture 1.x because I expected the company that improved FCP v1 to do the same thing to Aperture v1.
Since it's designed to decode RAW files on the fly, the $300 program Aperture exists because Apple wants its users to go to buy a $10,000 computer to use it on (MP 3 GHz, 8GB RAM, 4x 500 GB HDs, X1900 XT graphics, and a 30" Apple DIsplay). Add another $1400 for the in the Quadro FX 4500!
Apple is making a bundle on these machines, and they want to WOW the press and "hog the spotlight" before the start of the show. Then all the attendees will be sure to visit the Apple booth and watch Aperture decode RAW files on the fly from a library of 25,000 RAW images.
Then hopefully they'll head home and spend lots of hard earned cash on new expensive MBP systems.
Regarding Aperture v2, in the last 10 months I'm sure that the development team has finally debugged the memory leaks and redesigned the database / keyword functions so these are quicker. I also expect the ability to support multiple libraries across different drives. Plus the "new" features that they will surprise us with!
Despite it's obvious flaws, I've gambled on Aperture 1.x because I expected the company that improved FCP v1 to do the same thing to Aperture v1.
Since it's designed to decode RAW files on the fly, the $300 program Aperture exists because Apple wants its users to go to buy a $10,000 computer to use it on (MP 3 GHz, 8GB RAM, 4x 500 GB HDs, X1900 XT graphics, and a 30" Apple DIsplay). Add another $1400 for the in the Quadro FX 4500!
Apple is making a bundle on these machines, and they want to WOW the press and "hog the spotlight" before the start of the show. Then all the attendees will be sure to visit the Apple booth and watch Aperture decode RAW files on the fly from a library of 25,000 RAW images.
Then hopefully they'll head home and spend lots of hard earned cash on new expensive MBP systems.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
so the program can not find the file. Does that mean my iPhone isnt tracking me?
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
kugino
Apr 22, 12:21 PM
all these streaming services (itunes cloud, netflix, etc.) make me glad that i still have my unlimited data on iphone...i wonder when at&t will cap the "unlimited" accts.?
seems smart what apple's doing, though...it's what dropbox does for files it knows are duplicates. just keep one copy of it but make it available to all the accounts that have saved it. just need to log the hash...makes uploading, syncing, etc. much faster. and i'm sure it'll save both apple and the end user a lot of bandwidth and storage fees...
seems smart what apple's doing, though...it's what dropbox does for files it knows are duplicates. just keep one copy of it but make it available to all the accounts that have saved it. just need to log the hash...makes uploading, syncing, etc. much faster. and i'm sure it'll save both apple and the end user a lot of bandwidth and storage fees...
CalBoy
Mar 29, 01:01 PM
I think they need to learn how to do math. How can you have an 18.8% cumulative annual growth rate when your market share goes down from 15.7% to 15.3%?
iOS will not grow as fast as the rest of the market, so as a portion of the whole, it will shrink slightly.
The only trouble I have with this prediction is that it assumes Nokia will be able to maintain its lead with handset marketshare as phones continue to evolve.
Nokia hasn't done well with smartphones, and neither has Windows Mobile (at least compared to Android, Blackberry, and iOS). IDC is predicting that current Nokia owners will move to Nokia smartphones as time goes on. However, I don't think this is a realistic assumption.
Android and iOS are already seen as the avant-garde of smartphones, and if customers can afford to update their handsets, they're going to want the best, not the mediocre. IDC's predictions would make sense if the transition were to happen instantaneously, but that's not how the world works. People in China, India, and Brazil who find themselves able to afford smartphones in increasing numbers are going to want what is widely perceived as the best or most superior device. For most people, that's either Android or iOS, or possibly Blackberry as a distant third.
There's also HP's acquisition of Palm to consider. If HP launches a new line of phones and does something to provide a robust series of apps, it would be yet another option that could fork Nokia's current marketshare. If tablets become even more significant to mobile os development, then there is another advantage to iOS and Android (and to a lesser extent RIM).
I think what's more probable is that Windows Mobile will capture a certain share of current Nokia users, but not all of them. Nokia's strength historically was to produce cheap, reliable, simple phones for billions of people. That's not how the smartphone market is playing out, and both Nokia and Microsoft have never been very good in markets where lowest common denominator didn't win.
iOS will not grow as fast as the rest of the market, so as a portion of the whole, it will shrink slightly.
The only trouble I have with this prediction is that it assumes Nokia will be able to maintain its lead with handset marketshare as phones continue to evolve.
Nokia hasn't done well with smartphones, and neither has Windows Mobile (at least compared to Android, Blackberry, and iOS). IDC is predicting that current Nokia owners will move to Nokia smartphones as time goes on. However, I don't think this is a realistic assumption.
Android and iOS are already seen as the avant-garde of smartphones, and if customers can afford to update their handsets, they're going to want the best, not the mediocre. IDC's predictions would make sense if the transition were to happen instantaneously, but that's not how the world works. People in China, India, and Brazil who find themselves able to afford smartphones in increasing numbers are going to want what is widely perceived as the best or most superior device. For most people, that's either Android or iOS, or possibly Blackberry as a distant third.
There's also HP's acquisition of Palm to consider. If HP launches a new line of phones and does something to provide a robust series of apps, it would be yet another option that could fork Nokia's current marketshare. If tablets become even more significant to mobile os development, then there is another advantage to iOS and Android (and to a lesser extent RIM).
I think what's more probable is that Windows Mobile will capture a certain share of current Nokia users, but not all of them. Nokia's strength historically was to produce cheap, reliable, simple phones for billions of people. That's not how the smartphone market is playing out, and both Nokia and Microsoft have never been very good in markets where lowest common denominator didn't win.
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?
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
I predict Apple will update from Core 1 to Core 2 within eight days. The only changes beside the CPU is perhaps a doubling of video memory on the iMac and MBPs.
balamw
Aug 23, 05:33 PM
I guess Creative just broke even. :)
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
Ted13
Sep 19, 02:16 PM
What I'm really curious about is if there was a huge bump in TV show sales volume with the 4 times increase in resolution.
I know I bought a show I wouldn't have otherwise and plan on buying a couple more.
I know I bought a show I wouldn't have otherwise and plan on buying a couple more.
Dmac77
Apr 24, 11:48 PM
That is safe. It is a shame you didn't get a ticket.
So do I. I would use them on people who think it is safe to travel 90+ mph on the freeway.:rolleyes:
Why do I feel like you are one of the people who purposely try to slow people down because you need to be on some higher moral ground and make sure the entire world does the speed you believe is safe?
So do I. I would use them on people who think it is safe to travel 90+ mph on the freeway.:rolleyes:
Why do I feel like you are one of the people who purposely try to slow people down because you need to be on some higher moral ground and make sure the entire world does the speed you believe is safe?
Vegasman
Mar 29, 12:24 PM
All of you W7 humpers please try and "snap" two excel or word files next to each other. Oh that right you cant, because heaven forbid I would want to do that and work simultaneous on two MS office files.
Uh!?
Uh!?
Eidorian
May 3, 12:07 PM
:confused:I understand that Eyefinity offers a single display per connector. The best example being the 5/6 Mini DisplayPort video cards on the market.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.