Mercury
Apr 2, 07:02 PM
interesting. Wonder if they'll keep variations of this in rotation while adding model-specific ones?
appleguy123
Jun 23, 01:56 AM
I feel justified that this is the main reason we never heard ANY thing about Mac OS X at the keynote AND the WWDC (as far as I know), and each new update seems to be just fixes and security updates. So, I think apple is working on iOS X, or what ever the touch screen Mac OS is.
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
This is my take on Apple: (semi-off-topic warning)
The way I see it, is that Apple is the technology company of the future. I mean, look at all these other smart phone makers; (exceptions being Google and HTC) they're still "stuck" in the 20th century. With our rapid advancement of technology, Apple's current technology should have been out 3 to 5 years ago. IMO, Apple is just playing "catch up" on a human scale, aka the iPhone 4 is the technology that should have been releasing 3 to 5 years ago.
Their phones are absolutely phenomenal for the 20th century!
Tailpike1153
Mar 24, 01:14 PM
Interesting. No complaints from me.
KirkL
Mar 31, 06:40 AM
Can you post a screenshot?
http://d2omthbq56rzfx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-Shot-2011-03-30-at-9.31.06-PM-670x462.png
http://d2omthbq56rzfx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-Shot-2011-03-30-at-9.31.06-PM-670x462.png
isgoed
Nov 27, 01:35 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:<= So right.
And 17" widescreen?? :confused: That is just small. That is about the samy height as my 1996 performa's 14" screen.
No, but no thanks.
And apple just can't compete with other vendors when you consider the general price-point of these things.
And 17" widescreen?? :confused: That is just small. That is about the samy height as my 1996 performa's 14" screen.
No, but no thanks.
And apple just can't compete with other vendors when you consider the general price-point of these things.
JackSYi
Jul 21, 01:47 AM
The stock price is gonna soar.
poppe
Jul 14, 10:33 AM
If it's cheaper, looks better, sounds better, and has more available titles, then why shouldn't HD DVD win? If BD used a more efficient codec, or at least had 50gb dual layer discs now (so MPEG2 could have a high bit rate at least), and the all the backing studios pumped out more titles, I'd buy it. But that isn't what it's shaping up to be right now.
-Terry
Because this is MacRumors which has more Sony fans that Mac fans
-Terry
Because this is MacRumors which has more Sony fans that Mac fans
Shorties
Jun 22, 08:49 PM
Ever since they made the name the iPad, and making it an exclusive iOS device, I have been predicting a MacPad, with a hybrid OS. But this makes way more sense for a first hybrid OS product.
Setmose
Mar 28, 09:55 AM
Curious, where is that from?
Here is a local thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1083585
:apple:
Here is a local thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1083585
:apple:
BRLawyer
Nov 16, 04:03 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
Notwithstandign such long-standing facts, there are still some MS fanboys here who think Windows is better for multicore usage (not to mention multitasking, which has been ALWAYS better in OS X)... :rolleyes:
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Notwithstandign such long-standing facts, there are still some MS fanboys here who think Windows is better for multicore usage (not to mention multitasking, which has been ALWAYS better in OS X)... :rolleyes:
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
JoeG4
Feb 27, 04:24 PM
Yeeup sounds about right.
Digging that Mac Pro though! :D
Digging that Mac Pro though! :D
dalvin200
Sep 7, 10:24 AM
Do you think that there may be some REALLY BIG new technological/hardware gizmo being intro'd? Something that makes the movie store just a minor part of a larger picture.
I think the 5G iPod with "video capabilities"" was just a test to see how the public took it. And adding TV shows to the US store in iTunes may proved a success depending on the stats they have.
They've had time to seriously think and come up with a product(s) and interface(s) and they are fully aware of all theeir competition and what other products & interfaces exist too.
So in answer to your question, YES :-) I think this will be something revolutionary just as when the 1st iPod was announced.
I've got faith, although we will have to wait and see.
I think the 5G iPod with "video capabilities"" was just a test to see how the public took it. And adding TV shows to the US store in iTunes may proved a success depending on the stats they have.
They've had time to seriously think and come up with a product(s) and interface(s) and they are fully aware of all theeir competition and what other products & interfaces exist too.
So in answer to your question, YES :-) I think this will be something revolutionary just as when the 1st iPod was announced.
I've got faith, although we will have to wait and see.
jav6454
Apr 9, 09:41 PM
Yes I can. I learned how to drive on stick.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 08:25 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
RBMaraman
Jan 1, 07:40 PM
12" Mbp
Not gonna happen.
The only time the words "Pro" and "12 Inch" fall together is in reference to pr0n.
Not gonna happen.
The only time the words "Pro" and "12 Inch" fall together is in reference to pr0n.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
iGav
Apr 10, 03:12 PM
Yes in terms of quick shifting a sequential gearbox is it.
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
To be fair... it's not just about the speed of the shift. It's also the fact that (in a double-clutch anyway) it opens up a different approach to driving compared to a conventional manual, for example you can downshift as you left foot brake whilst turning in and balancing the car on both the throttle and the brake through the corner, whilst also changing back up, all the time without upsetting the balance of the car. It's a different approach, but no less challenging than a conventional manual.
But it's also like what robbie has pointed out, many modern ECU's no longer allow a driver to heel-and-toe because as soon as the brake pedal is depressed, it overrides the accelerator, so you can't blip the throttle, coupled with the generally tardy throttle response of drive-by-wire anyway, you could end up with a situation whereby it's impossible to actually heel-in-toe at all.... never mind left foot brake.
Have to say, whenever these threads crop up, I'm alway left with the opinion that in the U.S., being able to depress a clutch and move a stick at the same time is seen as some kind of divine talent... :p :p :p For the record, I can drive a manual, but then so did my granma. ;) :p
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 6, 08:42 PM
Mac OS X Leopard, Hasta la Vista, Vista
Nice!
Nice!
ghostface147
Apr 2, 08:27 PM
nice...
macgeek18
Feb 17, 10:31 PM
here's my current setup. I finally got a Intel Mac and it will become to main machine soon. In the Pic is everything in the sig but the IIc and Performa.
mysteria
Apr 3, 03:20 AM
Fullscreen flash videos in Safari are finally without menu bar bug.
da_sebsta
Apr 2, 06:09 AM
While i dont agree with imac_Japan that apple needs saving there needs to be changes in its attitude with markets other then US especially in Australia by apple.I live in Aus It is no wonder that apple is struggling in here, other then the ipod there sales arent ne thing to write home about and the main reason this is because of the inflated price of there products over the price in US. When people see other computers in shops for the quater of the price with marketing to make it look faster and better no wander peple arnt buying macs here.
WCat
Jul 19, 05:10 PM
Like some others here have asked, I just have to wonder how some of these top-tier analysts manage to maintain cred with such lousy predictions? Not only were they off on the numbers quite a bit, but they were also off in the overall direction. That's pretty major.
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
Leave it to Apple to prove the "common knowledge" wrong yet again! Isn't that what they're best at??
cube
Mar 24, 04:15 PM
You got it wrong.
Llanos, Brazos and pretty much every Fusion platform does not compete against Sandy Bridge. No...
It competes against Intel's Atom platform. Atom CPU offerings beat the many of the offerings on the AMD side. However, on the GPU side, AMD has got Intel really well.
Anandtech did a nice little article on this. They found the whole Fusion concept and implementation as a whole beats Intel's Atom implementation overall for the HTPC. However, down to specifics, well I just discussed it.
Llano is not Atom-level hardware. That is Zacate/Ontario.
Llano is the mainstream Sandy Bridge competitor.
Llanos, Brazos and pretty much every Fusion platform does not compete against Sandy Bridge. No...
It competes against Intel's Atom platform. Atom CPU offerings beat the many of the offerings on the AMD side. However, on the GPU side, AMD has got Intel really well.
Anandtech did a nice little article on this. They found the whole Fusion concept and implementation as a whole beats Intel's Atom implementation overall for the HTPC. However, down to specifics, well I just discussed it.
Llano is not Atom-level hardware. That is Zacate/Ontario.
Llano is the mainstream Sandy Bridge competitor.
