rcp27
Apr 13, 04:59 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
Basically if you want to use it a lot (say top 5 or so programs) drag it to the dock and it's always there, one click to launch. On the right side of the dock is instant access to the applications folder. One click and the full contents are visible, so two clicks to launch (same as start menu). Next to it is the documents folder, same idea. You can set the dock to hide unless you bring the mouse to the edge (like auto hide on the windows task bar). It's not quite the same but offers basically the same degree of easy access and flexibility.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Copy and paste are there. I believe alt tab is too (or is it command tab?), but expos� and spaces handle the problem sooooo much better that I never feel the need for it. When I switched and discovered expos� I really did wonder how I ever lived without it (and when I have to use a Windows box it is the one thing I really miss most).
Basically if you want to use it a lot (say top 5 or so programs) drag it to the dock and it's always there, one click to launch. On the right side of the dock is instant access to the applications folder. One click and the full contents are visible, so two clicks to launch (same as start menu). Next to it is the documents folder, same idea. You can set the dock to hide unless you bring the mouse to the edge (like auto hide on the windows task bar). It's not quite the same but offers basically the same degree of easy access and flexibility.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Copy and paste are there. I believe alt tab is too (or is it command tab?), but expos� and spaces handle the problem sooooo much better that I never feel the need for it. When I switched and discovered expos� I really did wonder how I ever lived without it (and when I have to use a Windows box it is the one thing I really miss most).
D4F
Apr 28, 08:45 AM
Uh, not even close. Nice try though.
Good lord, you so far away from the point that you may never find it. Holy crap.
Those darn little desktop computers are never going to replace our minicomputers! They're little toys! *SNORT*
Yeah. Those machines that they were running to create Avatar? They aren't PCs, smart guy.
Those minicomputers will NEVER be able to do the work of our mainframes! Enjoy your toys!
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
oh wait...
What IS a server??
Definition: A network server is a computer designed to process requests and deliver data to other (client) computers over a local network or the Internet.
Kings Of Leon
Kings of Leon.
Kings of Leon - Because of the
Kings of Leon
Kings of Leon
Black Hole Kings of Leon
Kings of Leon
Kings of Leon
Kings Of Leon
Kings of Leon Desktop
kings of leon wallpaper All
Kings of Leon Wallpaper
Kings of Leon at The Wharf in
kingsofleon.jpg kings of leon
download, Kings
digger også Kings of leon.
kings of leon wallpaper
Good lord, you so far away from the point that you may never find it. Holy crap.
Those darn little desktop computers are never going to replace our minicomputers! They're little toys! *SNORT*
Yeah. Those machines that they were running to create Avatar? They aren't PCs, smart guy.
Those minicomputers will NEVER be able to do the work of our mainframes! Enjoy your toys!
Another one...
You didn't even read that article did you?
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
oh wait...
What IS a server??
Definition: A network server is a computer designed to process requests and deliver data to other (client) computers over a local network or the Internet.
archipellago
May 2, 05:10 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
crazytom
Mar 19, 10:33 PM
Why I don't like copy protection: I would prefer to use the music I purchase in whatever way I want. For those of you who say "If you don't like the scheme, don't buy it" --- I agree, I haven't purchased a single song from iTMS. It's overpriced, second rate quality, and rounded out with restrictions. I'm saying F U to the RIAA. I don't have anything against the artists, but it's a shame they won't ever get my appreciation ($$$) for their creativity and hard work (it's criminal, I tell you...).
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:30 AM
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
Play WoW and CoD...... :confused:
That's what I was thinking of ;)
Play WoW and CoD...... :confused:
That's what I was thinking of ;)
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:06 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
Sydde
Mar 14, 02:39 PM
We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
ricgnzlzcr
Oct 25, 11:15 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I think price won't be as big of a factor as you'd imagine. These computers are directed towards pros. I'm sure those who need the power will continually purchase at this price. Not too long ago, the stock high-end powermac was about $3500. If they build it, people will buy it:p .
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I think price won't be as big of a factor as you'd imagine. These computers are directed towards pros. I'm sure those who need the power will continually purchase at this price. Not too long ago, the stock high-end powermac was about $3500. If they build it, people will buy it:p .
supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 10:32 AM
And for the record, of the 12+ Apples and 3+ iPods I've owned, I've:
1. Donated my 1994 Apple Performa (?), of which I got a lot of mileage out of, to a company that fixed it, removed my data for me, and gave the computer to women who were abused.
2. I've sold all my other Apples to new owners who used them for school, work, etc.
3. I have an old Power Book I sold to my old roommate, whose new roomies dropped it (and his new PC notebook, whoops), and I have it back. I may just sell it to an Apple guru who can repair and use it.
4. My old iPod (Gen 2, 2002) is about to become a special OS X bootable disk; my wife's mini now belongs to her Dad; my other iPod (gen 3 or 4--last black and white one) my wife uses; and I love my iPod video.
No need to throw any of it away, no need to recycle it if others can use it, and I can take the money and buy new Apples or pay some bills, etc.
1. Donated my 1994 Apple Performa (?), of which I got a lot of mileage out of, to a company that fixed it, removed my data for me, and gave the computer to women who were abused.
2. I've sold all my other Apples to new owners who used them for school, work, etc.
3. I have an old Power Book I sold to my old roommate, whose new roomies dropped it (and his new PC notebook, whoops), and I have it back. I may just sell it to an Apple guru who can repair and use it.
4. My old iPod (Gen 2, 2002) is about to become a special OS X bootable disk; my wife's mini now belongs to her Dad; my other iPod (gen 3 or 4--last black and white one) my wife uses; and I love my iPod video.
No need to throw any of it away, no need to recycle it if others can use it, and I can take the money and buy new Apples or pay some bills, etc.
Travisimo
Mar 18, 11:10 AM
Meh... I use MyWi occasionally, meaning only once or twice every TWO months.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
The facts get distorted by deceptive TOS's from At&t and peoples own agendas.
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
It's not deceptive. It's just that people don't read it until they want to prove/disprove something.
People are more concerned with shortening their wait time/shopping experience online or in the store to get their hands on their devices more so than reading the terms and usage regarding those devices.
But that's not deceptive. You're confusing deceptive with laziness
babyj
Sep 21, 03:17 AM
There is going to be a lot of changes to how we watch and pay for tv shows over the next few years, its still early days at the moment. The main change will be watching everything on demand rather than at the time it is broadcast.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
The bottom line is that the tv companies (producers and broadcasters) have to make money from the shows. That money can come from advertising, cable / satellite subscriptions, paying for downloads or for on demand type services.
Everyone is treading very carefully at present as they don't want to upset the balance. For example, brands won't pay for advertising if no one is watching the ads as viewers are all buying downloads and until the downloads are paying the bills the tv companies don't want to do anything too drastic.
Here in the UK the next big thing is likely to be the BBC going all out with downloads and streaming of their content. Which in theory won't cost anyone in the UK much (maybe just paying for the traffic) as we already pay through the tv license.
If Apple want to get a good market share in the UK they need to forget about tv shows and do a deal for content from the BBC and the Premiership, as the exclusive live rights to the latter is what made Sky so big and popular.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
cgmpowers
Sep 12, 04:04 PM
I agree, they most likely left out the DVR function because of the movie and television studios. Why would someone want to 'buy' an older movie for $10 when you can record it via EyeTV and edit out the commercials and the transfer it to your iTunes (which is exactly what the new version of EyeTV does!).
No wonder Apple made EyeTV unbundle it from Front Row... At least I can still record, edit out commercials and transfer to iTunes!! Who needs Tivo anymore!!
Christopher Powers
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
No wonder Apple made EyeTV unbundle it from Front Row... At least I can still record, edit out commercials and transfer to iTunes!! Who needs Tivo anymore!!
Christopher Powers
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
rtdunham
Sep 22, 11:33 PM
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering"...It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer...there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
I can understand Job's being vague about whether it'll have 802.11g or n. But wouldn't it be nice if, ten days after the product was "revealed", we at least knew WHAT it was (HD or not? etc.) and HOW it will work (still many questions about that). Talk about an RDF!
z4n3
Apr 13, 08:44 AM
Seriously - most you guys could walk into the Gates of Heaven, look at Jesus, and say "Is this all? This sucks."
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
jaguarx
Oct 30, 06:11 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
mdntcallr
Aug 29, 02:38 PM
i am sure apple will get better at recycling.
they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.
they are making improvements already. shouldnt be an issue.
dduff617
Sep 20, 01:31 AM
given what i know of the device, including it's form factor, i am skeptical about the report the it contains a hard drive.
No comments:
Post a Comment