hyddan
Jan 12, 02:05 AM
Just like the "professional" iPods are all aluminium, and the "professional" iMac, not to mention the "professional" iPhone.
Apple is going Alumium across the product line, for environmental reasons. The MacBooks will be the last plastic Macs made.
Aluminum is much harder to recycle than plastic, so no, it isn't any better for the environment.
Apple is going Alumium across the product line, for environmental reasons. The MacBooks will be the last plastic Macs made.
Aluminum is much harder to recycle than plastic, so no, it isn't any better for the environment.
xPismo
Oct 24, 01:00 AM
FW800 and/or eSATA, HD screen, C2D (nice shortening btw) and $200.00 less price point. Please Apple. Make it so.
Eraserhead
Nov 27, 01:30 PM
I think Apple will specifically NOT make a 17" Monitor as Digitimes are so astonishingly innaccurate :rolleyes:.
Hraggleblarg
Sep 29, 10:41 PM
Every time I go by CR's reviews, I make a terrible purchase... I wonder what that says.
rxse7en
Jul 13, 10:32 PM
Put it in the Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro 17" and I'm all over it. Would still like to see if HD-DVD prevails.
Now, I have a plasma hdtv that'll "do" 1080i and a dvd player that can output and upscale (if needed) to 1080i--can I burn 1080i sources and play the BR disk in my dvd player OR will I also need a BR player to view HD video? 25gb per side is a nice chunk o' storage though.
B
Now, I have a plasma hdtv that'll "do" 1080i and a dvd player that can output and upscale (if needed) to 1080i--can I burn 1080i sources and play the BR disk in my dvd player OR will I also need a BR player to view HD video? 25gb per side is a nice chunk o' storage though.
B
Tonsko
Jan 7, 05:13 AM
Not too bad, if it's a modern one. Depends if he rags it all the time, but you'll get 35+ out of it I imagine.
mac17
Dec 18, 10:45 PM
guys i think you're being too hard on zune. play with one. it's not THAT bad. it's ugly, but the interface isn't bad at all. I don't plan on buying a zune (my ipod is fine and i'm waiting on a video pod), but it's good to have it in the marketplace for competition sake. maybe apple will actually pay attention to some of the features like the built in radio tuner which is a nobrainer...
actually it is THAT bad i played with one in a local staples and i pressed the back/menu button like 3 times in a row suddenly the thing crashes on me it kept on blinking on and off 5 or 6 times me and my freind walked away laughing after catching it on video on my phone:D :D
actually it is THAT bad i played with one in a local staples and i pressed the back/menu button like 3 times in a row suddenly the thing crashes on me it kept on blinking on and off 5 or 6 times me and my freind walked away laughing after catching it on video on my phone:D :D
JackAxe
Mar 26, 01:30 AM
Sure it might be lame and inferior in your taste, but can you take your toys with you? Yeah. That's the power with the iPad.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
OH noooos, you gots me theres. ;) It's not exactly easy to takes 'some' of me toys with me, but as a trade off I get an absolutely superior experience on all fronts. There are NO compromises to my controls. I get top notch visuals now that are much better than what can be done on dated consoles like the PS3 and 360, and at a much higher frame rate.
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
In the future, the iPad will have the graphic power of PS3 or Xbox 360.
OH noooos, you gots me theres. ;) It's not exactly easy to takes 'some' of me toys with me, but as a trade off I get an absolutely superior experience on all fronts. There are NO compromises to my controls. I get top notch visuals now that are much better than what can be done on dated consoles like the PS3 and 360, and at a much higher frame rate.
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
MagicBoy
Feb 24, 06:49 PM
The diesel is an Italian (VM Motori) design, and on paper the numbers are pretty good: 150hp and 240 ft-lbs from a 2L I4. It's a common rail direct injection motor, but not turbocharged.
It's got to be turbocharged for that amount of power and torque. There hasn't been a common rail non-turbo diesel made that I'm aware of. The last non-Turbo cars I recall being sold over here were the venerable VAG SDI which was rough as anything but lasted forever, and the PSA XUD. Both disappeared from new cars about 5 years ago.
Turbo Diesels are cleaner and more fuel efficient even with significantly more power.
I'll be sticking with my TDI PD engined Skoda. Thumping performance, 65mpg on a run and none of the electronics and emissions kit to go wrong. Plus I can make soot on demand to annoy BMW drivers :D
It's got to be turbocharged for that amount of power and torque. There hasn't been a common rail non-turbo diesel made that I'm aware of. The last non-Turbo cars I recall being sold over here were the venerable VAG SDI which was rough as anything but lasted forever, and the PSA XUD. Both disappeared from new cars about 5 years ago.
Turbo Diesels are cleaner and more fuel efficient even with significantly more power.
I'll be sticking with my TDI PD engined Skoda. Thumping performance, 65mpg on a run and none of the electronics and emissions kit to go wrong. Plus I can make soot on demand to annoy BMW drivers :D
fun173
Jan 28, 10:00 PM
^^ It may be an illusion but are your rear tires smaller than the front ones? Anyways, you have an awesome car. Looks very nice.
Sky Blue
Apr 2, 09:32 AM
Thus far, stability-wise, it is not too bad for a beta. A lot of the UI rendering errors from beta 1 have been ironed out. My bet would be that this will be a $29 upgrade, as it doesn't add much but rather refines what 10.6 started.
haha, no chance. Tons of new features here. I can see Apple charging less than $129 if they go the App Store route, but if boxed retail is released I'm sure it'll be $129.
haha, no chance. Tons of new features here. I can see Apple charging less than $129 if they go the App Store route, but if boxed retail is released I'm sure it'll be $129.
Peterkro
Mar 21, 06:18 PM
Chinese naval vessel in the Med,to apparently to extract Chinese workers from Libya (I thought they got them all out before the western nations)?
kainjow
Jul 20, 12:29 AM
But the article doesn't mention the 800lbs gorilla in the sidelines, namely, connection/download time. Almost every article about the studio's entry into the movie download business flatly ignores this issue, but, imo, it's a real world showstopper (pun intended). Hanging around waiting endlessly while literally gigs of data trickle down your internet pipe isn't going to be anyone's cup of tea.
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Most likely it would work exactly like how a normal streamed QuickTime movie downloads. It buffers for a few minutes, and then you can start watching it, and it downloads in the background, and saves it to file letting you watch it again for X times/days. This is exactly how Movielink works.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:26 AM
It says Vista 2.0, not 2...
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
freebooter
Oct 23, 11:27 AM
New MacBook Pro's and video iPods for some, abortions and miniature American flags for others
Ha Hah Haah!! Classic! Truly the best bit of poetry I've read on any thread.
Ha Hah Haah!! Classic! Truly the best bit of poetry I've read on any thread.
azzurri000
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
I am underwhelmed, as Tim Gunn might say.
relimw
Sep 6, 09:06 AM
You are mistaken. MBP was introduced January 10. It will go all new design and Core 2 Duo next Tuesday for sure.
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
AidenShaw
Aug 26, 11:12 AM
Err...I was defending that Conroe could fit in the iMac. Especially having the G5 in there.
Could the deciding factor be the noise?
Not arguing about whether a Conroe would fit in the iMacIntel case - but wondering whether the extra heat would result in extra noise from the cooling fans.
The iMacIntel doesn't have to as fast as it possibly can, especially since the New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre Mac� will be there for people who want a bit more power without the size and cost of the maxi-tower ProMacIntel.
Could the deciding factor be the noise?
Not arguing about whether a Conroe would fit in the iMacIntel case - but wondering whether the extra heat would result in extra noise from the cooling fans.
The iMacIntel doesn't have to as fast as it possibly can, especially since the New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre Mac� will be there for people who want a bit more power without the size and cost of the maxi-tower ProMacIntel.
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by BlizzardBomb
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
And the 17-inch iMac has an important educational role, taking the place of the eMac.
rdowns
Sep 14, 08:50 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
BC2009
May 2, 05:02 PM
this is a very smart play if they are thinking that iPad and iPhone halo-effect is going to drive users to Mac OS X. this will give a smoother transition.
those who have a background in Mac OS X are going to feel a bit unnerved by it, but I should have the technical expertise to figure it out.
however, i see no reason why tapping and holding a non-MAS app and then tapping the X should not just simulate the whole "drag to trash" functionality of today. it would look stupid if some of my apps deleted this way and others did not.
also, what I do like about this is that apple can ensure that novice users don't delete the stuff they need by simply NOT placing a little "X" on the jiggly icon (like they do on iOS). this way there is not an attempt to delete followed by a warning that they cannot delete it -- instead they just never get the opportunity to try.
those who have a background in Mac OS X are going to feel a bit unnerved by it, but I should have the technical expertise to figure it out.
however, i see no reason why tapping and holding a non-MAS app and then tapping the X should not just simulate the whole "drag to trash" functionality of today. it would look stupid if some of my apps deleted this way and others did not.
also, what I do like about this is that apple can ensure that novice users don't delete the stuff they need by simply NOT placing a little "X" on the jiggly icon (like they do on iOS). this way there is not an attempt to delete followed by a warning that they cannot delete it -- instead they just never get the opportunity to try.
NAG
Jan 11, 10:41 PM
Seeing as how we don't know the specs of the machine let alone the price point, no, no one will be able to tell you the benefits of this product.
Lifequest
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Oh dear. How is Stevie going to sleep at night knowing that one potential customer is still on the fence...:rolleyes:
Frankly, they don't give two animal-faecal-secretions about whether you buy it or not.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Oh dear. How is Stevie going to sleep at night knowing that one potential customer is still on the fence...:rolleyes:
Frankly, they don't give two animal-faecal-secretions about whether you buy it or not.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
No comments:
Post a Comment