medazinol
Nov 29, 04:36 PM
Like everyone else, I've seen the pictures of the back of the iTV (no video in ports) but I'd really like to able to record on this puppy.
I'll still buy one because I have tons of video I'd rather watch on my plasma pulled from my iMac rather than wasting CDs and DVDs. Sorry but my XBOX 360 limitation to WMV streaming via Conenect360 just doesn't cut it...
I'll still buy one because I have tons of video I'd rather watch on my plasma pulled from my iMac rather than wasting CDs and DVDs. Sorry but my XBOX 360 limitation to WMV streaming via Conenect360 just doesn't cut it...
mainstreetmark
Jul 19, 03:47 PM
Count me in, too.
Of course, they got an extra $200 out of me, because I wanted a black Macbook. *grumble*
Of course, they got an extra $200 out of me, because I wanted a black Macbook. *grumble*
jettredmont
Aug 16, 09:15 PM
Here is a map of the Sirius satellite orbits. You can get a signal pretty far south, at least as far as southern Mexico. But to conserve power, Sirius shuts the power down once the bird goes "below" the equator. XM does have a owership in WorldSpace which does broadcast around the globe through a network of various satellites.
http://www.mts.net/~jwt/sirius-xmorbitanim.gif
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
http://www.mts.net/~jwt/sirius-xmorbitanim.gif
Very interesting. Wonder why they did a "wobbly" geo-synch, and how their receivers cope with it. I'd guess it's a cost-related thing, but maybe there's an engineering reason for it (certainly does keep at least one bird near-vertical within the US at all times ...) Note that XM is depicted there as a "true" stationary orbit above the equator.
In any case, still, you're not going to see those satellites from Bombay, no matter how long and hard you look, without a really big mirror ...
iphone3gs16gb
Jan 23, 02:34 PM
deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
yup 89 accord with 42,000 miles in it, 5 speed manual :D
MacSA
Nov 27, 02:52 PM
meh - does this matter? Isn't 17" is getting to be a bit skimpy by any consumer standards.
I'm still using a 15" monitor. :p
I'm still using a 15" monitor. :p
ingenious
Apr 8, 12:53 PM
I think he did. He said something like "okay, I've read the other side. Now can we go back to talking about my half baked misguided ideas?"
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
ya i know but i was talking about when i put:
Thats not true ! Ive been reading everyone's posts but you just don't want to see both sides of the story. I just want Apple to do better...
Look at this business weekly online story about Apple - very interesting
http://www.businessweek.com/technol..._5468_tc056.htm
really, this is what Ive been taking about...I think that most Mac users don't want to hear it
and this one too
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main...cfm?NewsID=8372
ok, YOU listen to "our side" of the story now!!!!! The point is, apple is NOT dying, they do not need saving, blah blah blah. just read the 100 posts above mine explaining this to you, but you refusing to listen. If you want apple to do better, then think that and leave the rest of us alone. I myself wouldn't mind having more of my contacts using a mac so i wouldn't have to do tech support for them all the time, but then again, that would cut down on people who force money on me for it.
apb3
Aug 16, 01:14 PM
No your missing my first point. Sharing in my mind in this context is the listening but not the distribution of music. Synching is the distribution.
Hence why i was saying my method would allow you to share your library's but not sync them to more than one pod thus eliminating the piracy factor.
We are obviously talking about different things
I guess so. edit: but the original story mentions wireless purchasing. That brings us back to my point(s) as to why this is not likely. end edit
But do you really think that being able to share with one iPod is worth the costs? I already argued that point. If that's the only unique new feature - no go. Even if this came from a more reputable source, I still say there's NO WAY this passes the smell test.
The only way this would do anything for anyone is to drive sales of "shared" songs one pod to the other. Your friend lets you listen, you go home and buy (or buy on your iPod wirelessly but that brings me back to my original point doesn't it?) Word of mouth works just as well if not better and doesn't take away sales from other products, add to the cost of the unit, drain my battery and make Apple look like it's playing catch up.
Hence why i was saying my method would allow you to share your library's but not sync them to more than one pod thus eliminating the piracy factor.
We are obviously talking about different things
I guess so. edit: but the original story mentions wireless purchasing. That brings us back to my point(s) as to why this is not likely. end edit
But do you really think that being able to share with one iPod is worth the costs? I already argued that point. If that's the only unique new feature - no go. Even if this came from a more reputable source, I still say there's NO WAY this passes the smell test.
The only way this would do anything for anyone is to drive sales of "shared" songs one pod to the other. Your friend lets you listen, you go home and buy (or buy on your iPod wirelessly but that brings me back to my original point doesn't it?) Word of mouth works just as well if not better and doesn't take away sales from other products, add to the cost of the unit, drain my battery and make Apple look like it's playing catch up.
MacRumors
Mar 24, 01:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/24/mac-os-x-10-6-7-adds-support-for-new-amd-graphics-cards/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
Apple Wood HD 2010 Wallpaper
windows hd wallpaper hd
hd wallpaper for mac hd
apple wallpapers for mac hd.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/135905-amd_logo.jpg
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.
MShock
May 2, 05:40 PM
Interesting� after the new GNOME 3.0 release, I'm convinced we will move farther way from the typical menu layout to a more minimalist, more web interactive interface. iOS is probably the closest to that, but I see windows looking more like FireFox 4 for Windows with the Firefox pop down menu and elimination of File, Edit, View etc. at the top. Mac OS 10.8 or 11 will probably follow suit, except have more webOS like functionality, and will converge several apps into 1�
macidiot
Jul 19, 03:59 PM
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
MacRumors
Apr 19, 10:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/imac-supplies-becoming-constrained-ahead-of-potential-refresh/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/19/115238-2010_imacs_front_back.jpg
2009, under HD Wallpapers,
Mac OS X Leopard Wallpaper
50 HD MAC Wallpapers Part 2
Sport Wallpaper Wave Surfing
apple-mac-hd-wallpaper-41
cool wallpapers for mac hd.
wallpaper mac.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/19/115238-2010_imacs_front_back.jpg
diamond.g
Mar 24, 02:07 PM
The GPU can do that, no need for CPU. The CPU is just there to tell the GPU what to crunch assuming no FLAGS were thrown regarding a particular DRM-protected data.
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
I can not believe how long it has taken me to finally bother to register here...And it has taken the release of an iMac to do it.
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
MacSA
Aug 29, 11:55 AM
I assume that was *before* the mac pro shipped? I'd expect dropping sales before that, but you're not saying they've continued to drop after the Pro release? And are you including iMacs as part of desktop machines?
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
Apple posted revenue of $4.37 billion and a net quarterly profit of $472 million or $.54 per diluted share. For reference, the year-ago quarter brought in $3.53 billion in revenue, net profit of $320 million or $.37 per diluted share.
Analysts expected Apple to earn 44 cents per share, on average, within a range of 40 cents to 49 cents, on revenue of $3.68 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.
Apple shipped 1,327,000 Macintosh computers and 8,111,000 iPods during this quarter which represents a 12% growth in Macs and 32% growth in iPods year-over-year.
- 75% of Macs sold during the quarter used Intel processors.
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
- International sales accounted for 39 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
- iPod continued to earn a US market share of over 75 percent
- Desktops: 529,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 798,000, up 60% from previous quarter
- iPods: 8,526,000
ALL desktop machines......
Apple posted their 3rd Quarter 2006 financial results today.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060719164004.shtml
Apple posted revenue of $4.37 billion and a net quarterly profit of $472 million or $.54 per diluted share. For reference, the year-ago quarter brought in $3.53 billion in revenue, net profit of $320 million or $.37 per diluted share.
Analysts expected Apple to earn 44 cents per share, on average, within a range of 40 cents to 49 cents, on revenue of $3.68 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.
Apple shipped 1,327,000 Macintosh computers and 8,111,000 iPods during this quarter which represents a 12% growth in Macs and 32% growth in iPods year-over-year.
- 75% of Macs sold during the quarter used Intel processors.
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
- International sales accounted for 39 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
- iPod continued to earn a US market share of over 75 percent
- Desktops: 529,000, down 14% from previous quarter
- Portables: 798,000, up 60% from previous quarter
- iPods: 8,526,000
fall3n
Sep 1, 11:52 AM
I'm wondering if Apple would kill off the 17" if they did introduce a 23". I'm pretty sure now that the manufacturing cost difference between 17" and 20" is quite small.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
I highly doubt they would killl it off. I think they'd drop the price on it which would make it even more desirable for standard consumers with a budget. Sort of a, why get the mini when I could just pay a bit more for the iMac 17" kind of thing.
ghostface147
Apr 2, 08:27 PM
nice...
joe.cavers
Feb 23, 03:53 AM
No idea what film that is, but I do spy Handbrake on the MacBook, which looks identical to the one that I just retired. My optical drive in that machine was starting to go, I think. Only thing I've used the one in the new MacBook Pro for is to reinstall the OS after I got it...
Handbrake comes VERY close to destroying my Macbook ha ha, the CPU goes up close to 90 degrees celsius! Terrifying!
Handbrake comes VERY close to destroying my Macbook ha ha, the CPU goes up close to 90 degrees celsius! Terrifying!
paradillon
Oct 23, 09:28 PM
I cannot wait till I have my entire environment on a large pocket sized full-screen iPod like device and do most of my work via 802.11n and 4G wireless. I might suggest a slightly larger screen and battery as a BTO option.
Rocketman
Amen Brother! That's what I want too. Don't forget the built in isight.
Rocketman
Amen Brother! That's what I want too. Don't forget the built in isight.
someone28624
Mar 22, 04:18 PM
Not that I'd want this, BUT why doesn't Apple make the iPod Classic a multi-touch device? The Mac proves that you don't need to have flash memory in order for multi-touch to work. Is the HDD in the Classic too slow or unresponsive to work with iOS? The could call it the iPod Touch Classic or something. Then you could have the best of both worlds, large capacity and a touch screen. If they did that, though, there's no way I'd buy an iPod Touch (not that I have a desire for one as I've go the iPhone4).
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
Because multitouch sucks if you're trying to control your music while falling asleep in a dark room with the player under the covers, while driving, while running, or while dusting.
Uofmtiger
Jan 11, 10:03 PM
@hobbyrennfahrer:
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
I was intending on getting a 335i coupe and decided to take the 135i for a spin for kicks (it was the year they came out). While they run about the same speed, the 135i just felt quicker. I ended up with the 135i vert ( pic in old thread). I have had two 3 series before, so this was just a change of pace.
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
very nice! The 135 is a quick car! (especially because its sooooo light).
How do you like the handling on it though?
For me personally I would probably not get the 1 series for some reason, I'm just not a fan of the looks that much - now the 335i coupe, thats a killer car!
I was intending on getting a 335i coupe and decided to take the 135i for a spin for kicks (it was the year they came out). While they run about the same speed, the 135i just felt quicker. I ended up with the 135i vert ( pic in old thread). I have had two 3 series before, so this was just a change of pace.
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
kirky29
Jun 22, 01:14 PM
Maybe if they made it a bit like Front Row etc.
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
.. But with the ability to have it in a window mode. :)
bketchum
Sep 1, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMann
I think this rumor should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems highly unlikely a 23 inch imac would emerge (or even should emerge).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I agree. If this rumor is true, this will be my next computer. I'm shopping for an LCD TV and a computer. A 23-inch iMac would cover both for me nicely. Fingers crossed.
PurrBall
Apr 1, 11:19 AM
AirDrop shows up on my iMac9,1 now; it was missing in DP1.
Also.. heh. This icon jumped out of Launchpad and won't go back! 279250
Also.. heh. This icon jumped out of Launchpad and won't go back! 279250
