toxic
Apr 5, 09:13 PM
- "enter" (return) is no longer "open", it's "rename". cmd-down is open file/folder
- no cut in Finder
- when deleting from a removable drive, the file is not deleted and storage space restored until the trash is emptied
- fewer customization options and less straightforward to implement
- Office cross-platform compatibility stinks
- HFS+ (filesystem) is more vulnerable to corruption
- Finder sorting stinks
not all of the above is necessarily worse, just different
- no cut in Finder
- when deleting from a removable drive, the file is not deleted and storage space restored until the trash is emptied
- fewer customization options and less straightforward to implement
- Office cross-platform compatibility stinks
- HFS+ (filesystem) is more vulnerable to corruption
- Finder sorting stinks
not all of the above is necessarily worse, just different
supremedesigner
May 2, 09:18 AM
<snip>
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
recursivejon
Mar 20, 02:23 PM
If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:10 PM
I'm in the U.S, and I do receive a lot of pressure! I get on average 4-5 messages a week from believers on Facebook warning me of hellfire. :-/ and I'm not even too strident in my disbelief.
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
I'm not sure how to express this eloquently, but I am sure you know what I mean... if you don't believe something it's not a part of your life. I don't believe in God, I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. I just don't label myself as a believer, rather than labeling myself as a disbeliever. It sounds like there is an opinion amongst some individuals that you can be converted, but in reality it's just not even an issue. I just don't get it!
On the plus side, at least you know you won't really end up in hell ;)
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
I'm not sure how to express this eloquently, but I am sure you know what I mean... if you don't believe something it's not a part of your life. I don't believe in God, I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. I just don't label myself as a believer, rather than labeling myself as a disbeliever. It sounds like there is an opinion amongst some individuals that you can be converted, but in reality it's just not even an issue. I just don't get it!
On the plus side, at least you know you won't really end up in hell ;)
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 01:06 PM
I'm commenting on arbitrary rules
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Actually you're not, because it's not an arbitrary rule. As someone explained to you earlier, there's at least one reason behind banning copulating in the street.
There is no valid reason for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That is arbitrary, and shameful - particularly since it seems to be antiquated, bigoted dogma (that not everyone shares) that is promoting this prohibition.
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.
Marriage should be about more than love, the people should be fully committed to working through problems instead of divorce. My Grandfather's wedding was arranged, this year they are celebrating 50 years of marriage and they love each other. Love can grow or even start if nurtured.
What a touching story. Don't know what any of this has to do with homosexuality.
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
And if you are being beaten in the street, and the police walk by instead of coming to your aid - is that depriving you of liberty, or merely "not supporting" you?
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Again, don't know what that has to do with homosexuality.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
balamw
Sep 20, 07:51 PM
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Where's that number coming from?
For simplicity let's make it an even $160 and assume 4 week/month. That's $40/week of TV Shows = 20 unique shows per week = ~3 episodes/day. This assumes no season/series discounts.
Don't forget that for cable/satellite, you still pay for it regardless if the show you want to watch is a rerun, so perhaps a better way to look at it is seasons of shows. The typical weekly show has 13-26 episodes/season and thus would be available at iTMS for $25-$50/year. Assuming the typical $55 cable bill you cite, this could easily add up to 12-24 seasons of shows per year (depending on # of episodes & discounts).
At $150/month you'd be able to buy 36-72 different seasons of shows from iTunes throughout the year. That's a boatload of TV.
B
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:05 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
Interesting...
But the idea of some "eternal" God(s) that created the Universe out of nothing comes from logic and reason? And the idea that this God made it so that humans eventually evolved so that they could worship this God(s), comes from logic and reason? And the only reason people believe this is because of an old compiled book of stories that were written by non-witnesses after the stories had been told and retold during ancient times. Is that logic and reason?
anim8or
Apr 13, 12:46 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
What's the deal with religious people?
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
space marine wallpaper.
space marine wallpaper.
wallpapers gt; us marine
VAIO Marine Wallpaper
marines wallpaper. wallpaper
Space Marine Wallpaper.
space marine wallpaper.
reagan marine Wallpaper,
space marine wallpaper.
Royal Marines Wallpapers
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
wlh99
Apr 6, 11:27 AM
Mac:
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
superleccy
Sep 20, 08:48 AM
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
chaoticbear
Apr 14, 04:36 PM
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
B
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck. At this point, I don't remember what we put each partition in, but I know the onboard BT client only accepted one format, I had to download some tool to make a small partition for that, and then we partitioned the rest as... something. If I ever need to plug directly into my computer for anything, I'm sure it'll be a blast.
And I don't generally mind the close = sleep behavior, but it'd be nice to have the option, you know? At least my new MBA charges my phone while it's closed; the old MB had to be open. It spent a lot of time open and idle.
OnionMike
Jun 7, 02:42 PM
i have been dropping calls a lot lately for some reason. up until last year i have no drop call but this year i have **** load of drops. COME ON ATT!! :mad:
dukebound85
Apr 24, 01:02 PM
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
or better yet....wouldn't living forever a hell? who would want to go to Heaven and live forever...
What makes life so sweet is that it is NOT everlasting
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
or better yet....wouldn't living forever a hell? who would want to go to Heaven and live forever...
What makes life so sweet is that it is NOT everlasting
Nicky G
Apr 15, 01:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
bugfaceuk
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.
slinger1968
Oct 26, 10:28 PM
Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.Exactly
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.Exactly
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.
On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.
Rocketman
Sep 12, 04:33 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Here is something I saw today for the first time. Cable TV to your IP address.
http://www.mobitv.com/
Low priced too for what it does.
Rocketman
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Here is something I saw today for the first time. Cable TV to your IP address.
http://www.mobitv.com/
Low priced too for what it does.
Rocketman
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:52 PM
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...Maybe I'm just naive and overly optimistic or just plain dumb. I always think of MacWorld as a consumer event so I thought Steve wouldn't care to present the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro there. But I guess you're probably right. Nevertheless, I feel there is good reason to feel optimistic and happy about the prospect of 8-core computing in 2007.
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...Maybe I'm just naive and overly optimistic or just plain dumb. I always think of MacWorld as a consumer event so I thought Steve wouldn't care to present the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro there. But I guess you're probably right. Nevertheless, I feel there is good reason to feel optimistic and happy about the prospect of 8-core computing in 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment