alent1234
Apr 22, 09:43 AM
Why would Apple release an iMac refresh a couple of months before a new OS debuts? Also, this would be the FASTEST REFRESH IN APPLE HISTORY at 9 months.
You all fell for the hype and made Bri@n T0ng (eat that SEO) and Sea-NET advertising revenue. :rolleyes:
because a lot of people will buy the iMac and then 10.7 for another $29 or so. more money in their pockets
You all fell for the hype and made Bri@n T0ng (eat that SEO) and Sea-NET advertising revenue. :rolleyes:
because a lot of people will buy the iMac and then 10.7 for another $29 or so. more money in their pockets
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 12:56 PM
I wish there were more affordable Diesels in the States. A Cruze might be a bit "too" affordable, but neither can I step up to a Mercedes. The BMW 330d is sweet, though. I have to rule out VWs based on a personal bias. What to do... :o
The VW diesels are very well-built cars. A friend bought an '09 Jetta TDI and he is satisfied with it. I checked out the BMW 335d at the Detroit Auto show a year ago or so, and while I like the car BMW only offers it as a sedan and the base price is a laughably expensive $44k. If you won't buy a VW and want a newish diesel, your only other vaguely affordable option is a used W210/W211 (1996-2009) Mercedes Benz E-Class diesel. Nice cars, but you'll have to find one and it will be used (and not particularly cheap).
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
Chrysler is particularly stupid in my opinion, because they should have put the Mercedes diesel engines from the Sprinter van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Sprinter#North_America), which they were already selling here, into the Ram. The Sprinter came with four, five and six cylinder diesels that would fit into a variety of other vehicles, and would be particularly useful in trucks and SUVs. While weaker than the biggest V8s, they still offer a lot of torque for their size and much better fuel economy. Why, Chrysler? Why?
Mercedes sells the Sprinter here now, so the opportunity was lost for Chrysler.
The VW diesels are very well-built cars. A friend bought an '09 Jetta TDI and he is satisfied with it. I checked out the BMW 335d at the Detroit Auto show a year ago or so, and while I like the car BMW only offers it as a sedan and the base price is a laughably expensive $44k. If you won't buy a VW and want a newish diesel, your only other vaguely affordable option is a used W210/W211 (1996-2009) Mercedes Benz E-Class diesel. Nice cars, but you'll have to find one and it will be used (and not particularly cheap).
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
Chrysler is particularly stupid in my opinion, because they should have put the Mercedes diesel engines from the Sprinter van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Sprinter#North_America), which they were already selling here, into the Ram. The Sprinter came with four, five and six cylinder diesels that would fit into a variety of other vehicles, and would be particularly useful in trucks and SUVs. While weaker than the biggest V8s, they still offer a lot of torque for their size and much better fuel economy. Why, Chrysler? Why?
Mercedes sells the Sprinter here now, so the opportunity was lost for Chrysler.
timerollson
Nov 26, 12:05 PM
Bought this today on a whim. I ****ing love it!:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5209638998_fe2eaf5b2c.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5209659858_9e4b8ab4af.jpg
Took advantage of Amazon's DVD sales and bought these:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2By8xib7UL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ak7iiEAlL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EDIanxpWL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DsibIifuL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5209638998_fe2eaf5b2c.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5209659858_9e4b8ab4af.jpg
Took advantage of Amazon's DVD sales and bought these:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2By8xib7UL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Ak7iiEAlL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EDIanxpWL._SL500_AA300_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DsibIifuL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
GeekLawyer
Apr 12, 08:19 PM
That was pretty funny. It looked on Twitter like maybe 9to5mac had sorta tricked AppleInsider into announcing FCP7. (2 years after the fact.) Apparently there's a lot of "borrowing" of stories between the two sites.
PBF
Apr 2, 11:40 PM
Actually, I'm talking about JUST the content within the window, and only Safari Fullscreen Mode can do it. I'll post a pic...
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. That's new. By the way, it works from both left and right sides. Neat.
:)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. That's new. By the way, it works from both left and right sides. Neat.
:)
evilgEEk
Sep 9, 09:04 PM
Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
roland.g
Sep 1, 01:21 PM
knowing Apple they may put a $1,999 price on it at intro, since they know there will be a mad rush of faithful. Then after a month or two when sales settle, drop the price to $1,899 for the holiday season. Both those prices could be $100 lower, depending on what the base config offers.
millerrh
Oct 23, 04:58 PM
I sure hope DanCosich's post is true! I just had my 12" Powerbook stolen from me last week and my insurance company is paying for an equal replacement or if one isn't available, the next thing up. Looks like a 15" MBP is the next thing up! Going from a 1.33GHz G4 to a C2D MBP is just a plain silly upgrade. I'm out $1000 from a deductible, but that's quite the upgrade for $1000. I'd say it was worth the theft except the fact that my car got busted up as well.
*crosses fingers*
*crosses fingers*
wolfboy
Oct 22, 01:40 PM
How are the Skullcandy Slider cases?
silentnite
Apr 24, 11:21 AM
No one should freak out and panic just yet, I'm sure apple has a logical explanation behind this.
corywoolf
Nov 27, 01:30 PM
This may pave the way to larger wide-screens.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
I know you originally said 30" and then edited it before I could post. I doubt there will be a 40" any time soon. It is more likely that Apple introduces a 32" LCD TV and probably a 42" Plasma.
I would love to see a 40" widescreen.
I know you originally said 30" and then edited it before I could post. I doubt there will be a 40" any time soon. It is more likely that Apple introduces a 32" LCD TV and probably a 42" Plasma.
jemeinc
Apr 2, 08:06 AM
[QUOTE=Doraemon]What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
Actually, while I couldn't disagree with iMac-Japan more, I have heard the itms doesn't actually make a profit on it's own... It's real purpose is to sell iPods, & break even on the sales of songs, or so I'm told...
paula patton baby boy. paula
actress wife Paula Patton
paula patton baby boy
paula patton baby boy
Robin Thicke amp; Paula Patton#39;s
paula patton baby pics. paula
Paula Patton: There#39;s No
Actually, while I couldn't disagree with iMac-Japan more, I have heard the itms doesn't actually make a profit on it's own... It's real purpose is to sell iPods, & break even on the sales of songs, or so I'm told...
trekkie604
Feb 19, 08:01 PM
Hasn't changed too much this time around:
http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011_s.jpg (http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011.jpg)
http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011_s.jpg (http://link.trekcubed.com/trekmb_Feb2011.jpg)
Small White Car
Aug 29, 09:06 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Merom?
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
I never expected the mini to go that way this year. Remember, the entire point of the mini is to be LOW COST.
The switch to Intel caused the price of the mini to jump $100. I would much rather see its processor lag behind a little bit if they can get that price back to $499.
Same thing with the Macbook, I'd rather see a $999 Macbook with the current chips than a $1,099 Macbook that keeps up with the Macbook Pro's chips.
Of course, there's nothing saying Apple will lower the prices but IF they do then I would be very happy to see the "old" Intel chips stay in those machines another 6 months. The first core chips are still VERY fast chips, it's the rest of the system (video card) that's holding things up now. I wonder how much extra benefit you'd even get from a Merom chip in a mini.
hogo
Sep 15, 06:16 AM
and who cares...
encro
Apr 27, 11:41 AM
I can't be the only one that is sick to death with regards to car analogies. Grrr
roach
Nov 30, 03:06 AM
Well, then you don't understand Apple's magic. That's precisely where
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
Aeroflux
Mar 28, 09:22 PM
Honestly? My launch day xbox is still going strong with nothing but 2 freeze ups. And my PS2 is still going strong too - i understand some peeps have had some significant problems (60% failure rate on launch 360s).
The crap I had to go through was insane. DHL never found my house. They shipped me 360s that went RRoD right out of the box. One 360 box mysteriously had a LOT of dirt in it. Another was scratched up. I had to fax them my receipt twice just to prove I bought the premium console (pro for customer service). My collection of reference numbers:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Miscellaneous%20Stuff/refnumbers2.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Miscellaneous%20Stuff/refnumbers1.png
Life cycle in relation to a platform isn't relative at all. As it stood prior to MS going for the 4 year lifecycle with the 360, it was a new platform every 5 years. With the advent of the playstation, there was significant overlap. This is what will happen again with the PS4 - hell, the PS2 has just recently been delisted by NPD - up until then they were still selling. That's the kind of overlap we are talking about - you still have the '10 year cycle' but a new platform will be released about half way through. T
Dude...got it before you said it the first time. By saying "life cycle is relative" I was referring to the whole paragraph I wrote before it, as in how long they last.
Methinks the fact that you don't blink that much would probably exacerbate your issues bud.
Yeah screen tear may be problematic for you, but some people don't even experience it - I do and I'll admit it's irritating, but it's hardly an issue where it will stop the majority. All I'm going to say it must suck to be you.
Try it on a big screen and get back to me...maybe it is just me. Who knows.
It sounds like you are a serious PC gaming fanboy and that's cool. There's plenty of room in the market. Granted, most of the PC devs are switching over as you make more money on the console side, but hey ho, you won't feel sick :rolleyes:
Gaming fanboy. PCs just have the most flexibility. I don't distinguish between hardware when seeking a great gaming experience, but when the hardware isn't up to snuff I don't hold back my criticism.
You are thinking the console market is like the PC market - it isn't I agree, I'd love a new gen console right about now, but they are doing some interesting things with kinect and to a slightly lesser extent, the Wii so I'll at least be amused until the new gen arrives - but that's the thing, you can't release consoles like ipods - there has to be a decent amount of time to gather pace and sales.
Every five years is fine with me. I don't like every year for another iPod either, too damn expensive.
Ask tony hawk? don't make me laugh, that was activision's decision, Tony sold his likeness a long time ago. You are just showing how....little you know. And seriously? you bought one of those pieces of crap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAnXD1rA32k
I'm sorry, but you are clearly clueless with some of your ideas. Which is fine with me, I at least am getting a laugh.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Emoticons/file_324.gif
The crap I had to go through was insane. DHL never found my house. They shipped me 360s that went RRoD right out of the box. One 360 box mysteriously had a LOT of dirt in it. Another was scratched up. I had to fax them my receipt twice just to prove I bought the premium console (pro for customer service). My collection of reference numbers:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Miscellaneous%20Stuff/refnumbers2.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Miscellaneous%20Stuff/refnumbers1.png
Life cycle in relation to a platform isn't relative at all. As it stood prior to MS going for the 4 year lifecycle with the 360, it was a new platform every 5 years. With the advent of the playstation, there was significant overlap. This is what will happen again with the PS4 - hell, the PS2 has just recently been delisted by NPD - up until then they were still selling. That's the kind of overlap we are talking about - you still have the '10 year cycle' but a new platform will be released about half way through. T
Dude...got it before you said it the first time. By saying "life cycle is relative" I was referring to the whole paragraph I wrote before it, as in how long they last.
Methinks the fact that you don't blink that much would probably exacerbate your issues bud.
Yeah screen tear may be problematic for you, but some people don't even experience it - I do and I'll admit it's irritating, but it's hardly an issue where it will stop the majority. All I'm going to say it must suck to be you.
Try it on a big screen and get back to me...maybe it is just me. Who knows.
It sounds like you are a serious PC gaming fanboy and that's cool. There's plenty of room in the market. Granted, most of the PC devs are switching over as you make more money on the console side, but hey ho, you won't feel sick :rolleyes:
Gaming fanboy. PCs just have the most flexibility. I don't distinguish between hardware when seeking a great gaming experience, but when the hardware isn't up to snuff I don't hold back my criticism.
You are thinking the console market is like the PC market - it isn't I agree, I'd love a new gen console right about now, but they are doing some interesting things with kinect and to a slightly lesser extent, the Wii so I'll at least be amused until the new gen arrives - but that's the thing, you can't release consoles like ipods - there has to be a decent amount of time to gather pace and sales.
Every five years is fine with me. I don't like every year for another iPod either, too damn expensive.
Ask tony hawk? don't make me laugh, that was activision's decision, Tony sold his likeness a long time ago. You are just showing how....little you know. And seriously? you bought one of those pieces of crap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAnXD1rA32k
I'm sorry, but you are clearly clueless with some of your ideas. Which is fine with me, I at least am getting a laugh.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/Aeroflux/Emoticons/file_324.gif
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
iRobby
Mar 24, 01:46 PM
Buying my first iMac is getting even better!! can't wait for the refresh!
GeekOFComedy
Nov 24, 09:54 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
skunk
Mar 28, 02:49 AM
So now that I pwned you you still try to twist words to get weasle your way out.That'll be the day.
koobcamuk
Jan 12, 05:47 AM
Intriguing.
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
More like Nike, surely? :P
Maybe the �Air� branding is taking a que from the sucess of one of Apple's international partners, O2.
More like Nike, surely? :P
twoodcc
Nov 9, 04:03 AM
Well it is not supported, same as running GPU on Linux... Only difference is that they are so many doing so that they figured it out...
it's not supported?
it's not supported?
No comments:
Post a Comment