vincenz
Feb 25, 02:07 PM
picture
How is that iMac floating in the air like that? Unless mine eyes deceive me.
How is that iMac floating in the air like that? Unless mine eyes deceive me.
peharri
Aug 19, 08:24 AM
You step into your car. The bluetooth receiver in your dashboard automatically detects the presence of your iPod. The finger controls on the steering wheel switch from controlling radio stations to stepping through playlists etc. It "just works". No cables. No need to even take the iPod out of your pocket or bag.
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
Keebler
Jul 18, 08:30 AM
i forgot to mention the use of bit torrent technology.
i wonder, and hope, that apple will use this somehow. i'm too techie, but remember a few months back, apple bought a data storage warehouse. what if they designed some sort of torrent system where your dload would come from multiple sources? that would surely make it faster?
now, i'm not saying this is the be all and end all, but it's intriguing to see if it would work.
it would be one of the only ways to make high quality stuff dloadable in a timely fashion. is it possible for them to also have some sort of a 'restart' or 'pickup' dload service so if something happens with your connection during dload, that is picks up where it stopped??
i wonder.... :)
i wonder, and hope, that apple will use this somehow. i'm too techie, but remember a few months back, apple bought a data storage warehouse. what if they designed some sort of torrent system where your dload would come from multiple sources? that would surely make it faster?
now, i'm not saying this is the be all and end all, but it's intriguing to see if it would work.
it would be one of the only ways to make high quality stuff dloadable in a timely fashion. is it possible for them to also have some sort of a 'restart' or 'pickup' dload service so if something happens with your connection during dload, that is picks up where it stopped??
i wonder.... :)
lifeinhd
Feb 22, 03:22 PM
I bought an 08 MacBook Aluminum. So No i'm not concerned or care about the upcoming refresh.
Even so, you could have probably had the 08 Al MB for another $100 off post-refresh.
It's finally all finished. Put the Craftsman tool chest in this weekend. It mostly hold cable and repair tools for guitars.
Those toolboxes are quite expensive. Any reason you chose one of those over, say, a plastic rolling cart from Ikea?
Even so, you could have probably had the 08 Al MB for another $100 off post-refresh.
It's finally all finished. Put the Craftsman tool chest in this weekend. It mostly hold cable and repair tools for guitars.
Those toolboxes are quite expensive. Any reason you chose one of those over, say, a plastic rolling cart from Ikea?
KnightWRX
Jun 22, 07:50 PM
Touch interfaces don't NECESSARILY mean touchscreen interfaces.
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
There are lots of ways this could be useful. For example: touch input in a desktop environment could be useful for manipulating or selecting MULTIPLE buttons/sliders/whatever independently, and at the same time � which you can't do with a mouse.
iOS apps are designed for touchscreen operations. A trackpad would fail miserably as an input device for these. Think about it, how do you know where on screen you are touching if you're not directly touching the screen. Trackpads work because of the cursor indication the position on screen. Touchscreens don't require cursors because you are "directly" manipulating graphical objects.
It just doesn't translate well to one another.
The Magic Trackpad � http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/07/apples-magic-trackpad-or-magic-slate-revealed/ � would allow for multi-touch on desktops, enabling many iOS applications to be used on a desktop computer (and obviously laptops could do the same thing with their trackpads).
There are lots of ways this could be useful. For example: touch input in a desktop environment could be useful for manipulating or selecting MULTIPLE buttons/sliders/whatever independently, and at the same time � which you can't do with a mouse.
iOS apps are designed for touchscreen operations. A trackpad would fail miserably as an input device for these. Think about it, how do you know where on screen you are touching if you're not directly touching the screen. Trackpads work because of the cursor indication the position on screen. Touchscreens don't require cursors because you are "directly" manipulating graphical objects.
It just doesn't translate well to one another.
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:11 PM
I dont know the significance of the big gray bar on top of the page where it blocks a portion of the page when the menu bar is coming out of auto hide -they could of made it semi transparent Hopefully they change that in the final release
I see how some might not like how it is handled. I guess my point was it was by design and is not a bug.
I see how some might not like how it is handled. I guess my point was it was by design and is not a bug.
twoodcc
Dec 17, 04:27 AM
well i'm finally in the top 10 for our team. just gotta keep it goin
twoodcc
Apr 17, 09:23 AM
Hehehe no it's fine, I will post it in this thread however ;)
Just realised that 1 million is very possible for me.
ok. yes it is!
and congrats to rwh202 for 4 million points!
Just realised that 1 million is very possible for me.
ok. yes it is!
and congrats to rwh202 for 4 million points!
apb3
Aug 18, 01:08 AM
Especially since they have ads on their music stations now. Sirius had 600,00 subscribers before Stern and now has over 4 million. Sirius WILL surpass XM sometime in the next year. The reasons are simple:
1. Howard Stern
2. Exclusive NFL, NBA, NHL (all now) and Nascar (as of 2007) programming.
3. Commercial-free music stations
XM has ads on the MUSIC stations?? ugh. Do you have both XM and Sirius or did you see that somewhere? I'd like to read that press release to see what they have to say and how they spin it. "We're not terrestrial radio, we're better. Oh wait, we are pretty much the same now... buy Crest! Sirius who?"
I understand the commercials/ads on talk-type radio on Sirius - and XM too I assume - especially the live ones as it takes time to change guests, pee, put the seat back down, set up segments, etc... and even recorded ones need separators/change of pace markers or whatever of sorts. If it brings in more revenue so my subscription is a bit lower, OK, I can deal. But not on the music channels. I can tell you, being able to hear and have personalities use the F-word and talk about pooh graphically (while sometimes funny) was not the main reason for my decison to go from terrestrial radio to Sirius (before Stern even made the leap). One of the big motivations was not having to sit through those lame local commercials touting some local PC repair man or dental office (sorry if that's you...) or the stations next "big" promotion just to hear a few songs I may or may not like. I want Punk or rap or old standards or comedy or Korean or way-out-there commentary? I tune to that specific station and know I will hear what I am in the mood for without idiotic offers for 0% financing until 2008 for those who qualify - I have the yellow pages and google, thanks.
1. Howard Stern
2. Exclusive NFL, NBA, NHL (all now) and Nascar (as of 2007) programming.
3. Commercial-free music stations
XM has ads on the MUSIC stations?? ugh. Do you have both XM and Sirius or did you see that somewhere? I'd like to read that press release to see what they have to say and how they spin it. "We're not terrestrial radio, we're better. Oh wait, we are pretty much the same now... buy Crest! Sirius who?"
I understand the commercials/ads on talk-type radio on Sirius - and XM too I assume - especially the live ones as it takes time to change guests, pee, put the seat back down, set up segments, etc... and even recorded ones need separators/change of pace markers or whatever of sorts. If it brings in more revenue so my subscription is a bit lower, OK, I can deal. But not on the music channels. I can tell you, being able to hear and have personalities use the F-word and talk about pooh graphically (while sometimes funny) was not the main reason for my decison to go from terrestrial radio to Sirius (before Stern even made the leap). One of the big motivations was not having to sit through those lame local commercials touting some local PC repair man or dental office (sorry if that's you...) or the stations next "big" promotion just to hear a few songs I may or may not like. I want Punk or rap or old standards or comedy or Korean or way-out-there commentary? I tune to that specific station and know I will hear what I am in the mood for without idiotic offers for 0% financing until 2008 for those who qualify - I have the yellow pages and google, thanks.
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 06:53 PM
If it's all just speculation, why be so quick to shout "privacy invasion" when you don't know the full story? It can't be one rule for you and another for everyone else.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
I'm not the one being quick to shout privacy invasion, it was on every tv news channel and news site. Somebody thinks it's a big deal. Now Apple brass is in damage control mode and must come up with some type of answer to appease the public.
The technical explanation from an Apple engineer will probably be the best explanation we'll see - Apple's PR rarely go into technical details on such matters. Anntenna-gate has been the only exception to that rule I can think of.
I'm not the one being quick to shout privacy invasion, it was on every tv news channel and news site. Somebody thinks it's a big deal. Now Apple brass is in damage control mode and must come up with some type of answer to appease the public.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
kadajawi
Sep 7, 04:31 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Upwards of $50 million? Yeah, the crappy ones do. Usually though I prefer low budget movies... Donnie Darko was made for maybe 4 million for example. Mulholland Drive: 15 million. Machuca: 1.5 million. 12 Angry Men: $340.000 (ok, that's an old movie, but I doubt it would cost much more when it was made today). American Beauty: 1.5 million. 2046: 12 million. Muxm�uschenstill: 40000 � (absolutely fantastic movie). Why do the actors earn so much money when there are tons of good, unknown actors who could do the job better? Why so many special effects? And even if you use so many... Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions. These movies shure took quite a lot of efford... why are they so cheap? Somethings going wrong in Hollywood. Too many bad movies done for too much money made only to earn money.
Anyway, buying DVD isn't too expensive too, the Criterion Collection is unfortunately expensive as hell, and you'll have to import them here, but there are quite a few good movies for a low price. Donnie Darko e.g. sells for a low price (around 10 � for the tin box 2 disc version), Mulholland Drive 10 �, some Kubricks 10 � or less, ... the Arthaus label is very expensive unfortunately... they seem to be some sort of German Criterion, without packing in so many specials.
Apple would have to compete with these prices, and that doesn't mean same price, but lower, much lower. I mean what looks better? A nice, big DVD collection, or, well... nothing...?
_iCeb0x_
Jan 12, 11:36 AM
I figured out the secret air message!
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
Lepton
Jan 12, 09:27 AM
Subtract keyboard. Add multi-touch and WiMax. Thin as an iPhone.
balamw
Sep 7, 02:24 PM
Sorry for the nastly long URL (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9OrBsXYjfxgJ:www.amazon.com/b/%3Fie%3DUTF8%26node%3D16263011+unbox+site:amazon.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a), but this is a cache page from a google search where you can see what Amazons offerings are for their new download service.
Pretty broad selection. Including some TV Shows similarly priced to iTMS.
B
Pretty broad selection. Including some TV Shows similarly priced to iTMS.
B
kurosov
Mar 25, 03:56 PM
Once they enable the use of other iOS devices as wireless controllers then i'll be interested.
louis Fashion
Apr 21, 08:40 PM
You and Full of Win must be related. Or married. Or both.
No they both married their sisters.
No they both married their sisters.
Ugg
Mar 31, 04:15 PM
We did more history coverage of WW2 than India and China combined.
But popular culture keeps it at the forefront.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
I couldn't agree more. I think what few people realize is that in almost all aspects, WWII was not so much the Second World War, as a continuation of WWI. I
For the US it was definitely our first bright and shining moment on the international stage and it has gained mythological status.
Suppose the British fascination with WWII comes from the fact that it was close, we could of easily lost.
Possibly but I think a lot of the British fascination has to do with
1. Its sense of impregnability due to its Island Status
2. WWII helped the UK regain a sense of self worth after the painful previous 2 decades. Of course, it was all thrown away again at Suez...
But popular culture keeps it at the forefront.
It's a fascinating subject, but also an unhealthy obsession for both nations. Also, the literature on the subject is bloated with bad research, crazed theories and revisionism.
I couldn't agree more. I think what few people realize is that in almost all aspects, WWII was not so much the Second World War, as a continuation of WWI. I
For the US it was definitely our first bright and shining moment on the international stage and it has gained mythological status.
Suppose the British fascination with WWII comes from the fact that it was close, we could of easily lost.
Possibly but I think a lot of the British fascination has to do with
1. Its sense of impregnability due to its Island Status
2. WWII helped the UK regain a sense of self worth after the painful previous 2 decades. Of course, it was all thrown away again at Suez...
Abyssgh0st
Jan 30, 10:00 AM
Best handling car i have ever driven.... have a 5 month old little boy though so i think its days are numbered in favour of a truck!
More pictures please! I lust after Lotus.
More pictures please! I lust after Lotus.
epicwelshman
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
Oh I know. As it stands now, the base Mac Mini in Canada, even with the edu discount is almost $700 (CDN) which is ridiculous when you can get full fledged PC laptops for less than that. I know it's a Apple, and it's a Mac so you expect higher prices, but still...
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
Oh I know. As it stands now, the base Mac Mini in Canada, even with the edu discount is almost $700 (CDN) which is ridiculous when you can get full fledged PC laptops for less than that. I know it's a Apple, and it's a Mac so you expect higher prices, but still...
HecubusPro
Sep 7, 01:17 PM
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
lordonuthin
Dec 12, 02:36 AM
Grats! Keep at it.
stcanard
Nov 28, 03:59 PM
I would argue, that MS success isn't because of it's OS, it's because of third party support.
Repeat after me:
The monopoly is not Windows. The monopoly is MS Word.
Repeat after me:
The monopoly is not Windows. The monopoly is MS Word.
woddy
Jan 12, 09:07 AM
i think there may be a umts / hsdpa powered macbook for the out off office use.
:cool:
:cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment