BenRoethig
Aug 24, 08:37 AM
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Assuming the feds would sign off, do you know how quickly everyone else would file an anti-trust suit if that happened?
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
I'd kill for X-Fi technology on a Mac.
Assuming the feds would sign off, do you know how quickly everyone else would file an anti-trust suit if that happened?
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.
I'd kill for X-Fi technology on a Mac.
Oryan
Aug 23, 09:52 PM
[...] Why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Creative's market cap is only $500 million versus Apple's $57 Billion, so they probably wouldn't have had a problem doing it.
Creative's market cap is only $500 million versus Apple's $57 Billion, so they probably wouldn't have had a problem doing it.
Eraserhead
Aug 23, 05:10 PM
It seems advantageous for both parties, Creative get the opportunity to make some money for a change too ;)
Multimedia
Sep 12, 06:31 PM
just encoded 5 secs of video using the quicktime default export for ipod... now the default is 640 x 480 that plays too.Please explain exactly how from where you did that. I am still trying with handbrake and EyeTV. The EyeTV2 export is supposed to be connected to the QuickTime but the iPod default is not H.264 640x480 in the EyetV2 Export windows.
AppleScruff1
Apr 25, 10:08 PM
And a large portion of that 99% of the market will find integrated graphics fine, until they venture to the Apple App Store, and find that their spanking new MBA have a video card not supported by 99% of the games on sale... In fact, integrated graphics are not only not supported, but are specifically singled out in most game's system requirements.
I don't question the gaming issue, I just wonder what percentage of MBP buyers would not buy because of the Intel graphics. My uneducated guess would be a very small percentage. Remember, Apple caters to the average consumer, not the geeks.
I don't question the gaming issue, I just wonder what percentage of MBP buyers would not buy because of the Intel graphics. My uneducated guess would be a very small percentage. Remember, Apple caters to the average consumer, not the geeks.
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 10:29 AM
I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
HecubusPro
Sep 16, 12:10 PM
The market screams for an Apple phone. The above architecture is a basic excellent expected product. Still even a video ichat internet communicating device ( of course camera capable )
would be "hot" for the market inroading mac populace. C'mon Steve this cant be that challenging!!
I don't know if the market in general is screaming for an Apple phone, but it would certainly add an interesting element to an oversaturated market filled with crap product.
would be "hot" for the market inroading mac populace. C'mon Steve this cant be that challenging!!
I don't know if the market in general is screaming for an Apple phone, but it would certainly add an interesting element to an oversaturated market filled with crap product.
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 22, 03:11 PM
24 inch useless? Thanks god, for telling us what's what.
Honestly, if it made any sense whatsoever then Apple wouldn't have killed it. Do the math. You're living in the past, kid.
Honestly, if it made any sense whatsoever then Apple wouldn't have killed it. Do the math. You're living in the past, kid.
3N16MA
Mar 30, 01:42 PM
They don't want to call their store "MobileApp" because they already have a store. It's called "Marketplace".
They would however like to describe their store that called "Marketplace" by saying that it is a store that sells apps. You know, an app store.
It is a market that sells apps. You know, and app market. No need for them to describe it as an App Store since that description would not fly over anyone's head.
They would however like to describe their store that called "Marketplace" by saying that it is a store that sells apps. You know, an app store.
It is a market that sells apps. You know, and app market. No need for them to describe it as an App Store since that description would not fly over anyone's head.
dsnort
Sep 19, 06:26 PM
I can't wait until I can get access to movies from around the world instead of just insipid Hollywood crap.
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
DrFrankTM
Sep 12, 06:59 AM
@Multimedia: Ok, but if Clovertown is available as early as November, I can't imagine Steve making Santa angry and not updating the Mac Pro until January. It's not a great time to buy a computer... yet. Things are moving too fast right now. In sixty days, we'll be looking at quads and octos... I still can't believe that it's coming that fast.
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.
projectle
Sep 20, 03:44 PM
Right off the bat, I have two final generation Powerbook G4s (one is mine, one is my son's) so I figured that it would be a good side by side test for the new video formats.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
Dagless
Apr 30, 06:13 PM
Sooo looking forward to this! I'll probably get one from the Apple Store the following day maybe. Highest stock model for me! Well, unless the price jumps up from the current one. Oh and a bad GPU will make me buy a new PC that day. So come on good GPU!
alust2013
Apr 25, 12:50 AM
I think the point is that traffic laws were made to prevent stuff like this in the first place. Had you been obeying the law, there would be no issue, other than maybe a slight annoyance for a couple minutes driving a little slow.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
Saladin
Sep 14, 09:59 PM
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
GuyV
Oct 13, 03:08 AM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
rdowns
Apr 25, 09:37 AM
I thought your mom is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan and your uncle is the traffic court judge ? :D
Miller Canfield is the largest law firm in Michigan and they have an office in Ann Arbor. Just sayin'.
Miller Canfield is the largest law firm in Michigan and they have an office in Ann Arbor. Just sayin'.
Infinity
Jul 14, 10:37 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
Would you rather a Pentium D @ 4Ghz or, Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93Ghz or even Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz?
Granted, the Pentium D example was a little bad and although its been hammered a billion times already, let me just say, Gigaherz is only a part of the equation when it comes to speed of modern CPU's.
According to Anadtech, Conroe blows eveything else out of the water in regards to sheer performance. Give me a Core 2 Architecture anyday.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
Would you rather a Pentium D @ 4Ghz or, Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93Ghz or even Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz?
Granted, the Pentium D example was a little bad and although its been hammered a billion times already, let me just say, Gigaherz is only a part of the equation when it comes to speed of modern CPU's.
According to Anadtech, Conroe blows eveything else out of the water in regards to sheer performance. Give me a Core 2 Architecture anyday.
JohnGalt
Sep 13, 09:29 PM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
or have to slide it open everytime you want to make a (non-voice dial) call.....
or have to slide it open everytime you want to make a (non-voice dial) call.....
rotobadger
Mar 30, 01:23 PM
Thats a pretty good point. But After some research I found they trademarked the phrase "THE Container store" not Container Store.
As posted above, "RoomStore" is trademarked, however.
As posted above, "RoomStore" is trademarked, however.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:09 AM
Ok, I will complain. ;) I stopped using Pandora on my iPhone when AT&T began offering incentives to decrease 3G bandwidth usage (i.e. lower monthly bills).
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
IMO, the new price structure for AT&T was not worth it to downgrade from the unlimited plan. wow, you save $5 to drop to only 2gb of data? or save $15/month and can only send a few emails a month?
we stream pandora around the house all the time and even wireless to airport expresses around the house...which u have to be connected to wifi to do that. only time use it is when going to/from work in the car so don't really use that much data on our phones with it.
if sound quality is an issue, i bet you are someone who also doesn't use appletv to watch movies bc it isn't of the highest quality?
Delivery of Pandora's stream also comes with the tradeoff of reduced fidelity and network interruptions, which I found barely acceptable for mobile application sans the bandwidth concerns above.
I also tired of the playlists that repeated with the free Pandora service and did not find it of enough value to myself personally to pay, especially if I was not guaranteed more variety of music.
That said, if you find Pandora useful, then good for you!
IMO, the new price structure for AT&T was not worth it to downgrade from the unlimited plan. wow, you save $5 to drop to only 2gb of data? or save $15/month and can only send a few emails a month?
we stream pandora around the house all the time and even wireless to airport expresses around the house...which u have to be connected to wifi to do that. only time use it is when going to/from work in the car so don't really use that much data on our phones with it.
if sound quality is an issue, i bet you are someone who also doesn't use appletv to watch movies bc it isn't of the highest quality?
xenotaku
Sep 12, 03:09 PM
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
Daghis
May 3, 02:57 PM
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Almost... From the footnote, the comparison for the first chart for the i5 model is a new (2011) 21.5" 2.7 GHz i5 iMac versus last year's 21.5" 3.2 GHz i3 iMac. The i7 chart is a new 27" 3.4 GHz i7 iMac versus last year's 27" 2.93 GHz i7 iMac.
Almost... From the footnote, the comparison for the first chart for the i5 model is a new (2011) 21.5" 2.7 GHz i5 iMac versus last year's 21.5" 3.2 GHz i3 iMac. The i7 chart is a new 27" 3.4 GHz i7 iMac versus last year's 27" 2.93 GHz i7 iMac.
0 comments:
Post a Comment