ccrandall77
Aug 16, 01:13 PM
I hope to god they don't use bluetooth. I've had nothing but bad sound quality with those types of headphones.
I hope they do... but in addition to 802.11b/g/n. If they ever provide better PIM applications or an SDK to develop your own applications, bluetooth would be use for for syncing the PIMs and connecting to a mobile phone.
I haven't seen any yet, but I would guess headphones using Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR would provide a better experience. Perhaps something like that'll be available by the time a bluetooth-enabled iPod would be released.
I hope they do... but in addition to 802.11b/g/n. If they ever provide better PIM applications or an SDK to develop your own applications, bluetooth would be use for for syncing the PIMs and connecting to a mobile phone.
I haven't seen any yet, but I would guess headphones using Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR would provide a better experience. Perhaps something like that'll be available by the time a bluetooth-enabled iPod would be released.
prady16
Oct 23, 08:48 AM
Some users in Germany report that their dealers told them existing MacBook (Pro) orders will be deleted and re-ordered tomorrow due to new releases of these notebooks.
All systems go for tomorrow update. :)
Maybe you forgot the word "reliable" between some and users. :D
All systems go for tomorrow update. :)
Maybe you forgot the word "reliable" between some and users. :D
macquariumguy
Mar 19, 04:36 AM
They do not have the right to kill each other.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
And we have a right to try to stop them killing each other?
No.
Doraemon
Apr 2, 07:24 AM
Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, [...]
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
Benguitar
Nov 23, 02:42 PM
Small Pelican case for my Oakley Glasses, (as seen on the last page of the XIV Purchases Thread)
Have room for another pair too, Maybe I'll find another pair that I like in the future.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_1-3.jpg
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_2-1.jpg
:)
Have room for another pair too, Maybe I'll find another pair that I like in the future.
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_1-3.jpg
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee180/Benguitar2/CameraRoll_2-1.jpg
:)
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Mousse
Feb 23, 11:43 AM
So when will automakers sell a compact pickup with a 2 liter diesel in the US? I want a diesel pick up. But I don't want a behemoth that requires a ladder to enter and hogs 2/3 of a 2 car garage.:p
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
I prefer diesel in a work truck for three reasons: torque, torque and torque.
RedReplicant
Apr 9, 06:35 PM
Yep, both RHD and LHD variety.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 12:59 AM
On the 802.11n front- to deviate from the thread again - if Apple and other traditional tech companies do not get behind this - it will leave an opening for telecom/cable companies like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon - all of whom are delivering faster and faster connection speeds to the (residential)consumer's front door .... Verizon's fiber optic system gives faster download and upload times than previous options, so they are creating a need for faster home networks.
Apple is beginning to compete with telcoms for the communication dollar (iChat AV and ventures into cell phones) - so telcoms might strike back by offering machines or networking cards that work with these advancing high speed internets. I dunno.
802.11n I could care less about right now. I'm sure wherever I end up at college will go to it eventually, but i'll do most of my stuff wired methinks :p
What we REALLY need is 10-gigabit ethernet standard. Gigabit is now becoming standard among too many companies! apple needs to lead the way into the future!
The high speed interfaces of the future are going to be verrrry nice. I wonder if we'll have infiniband as an option instead of just fibrechannel.
Apple is beginning to compete with telcoms for the communication dollar (iChat AV and ventures into cell phones) - so telcoms might strike back by offering machines or networking cards that work with these advancing high speed internets. I dunno.
802.11n I could care less about right now. I'm sure wherever I end up at college will go to it eventually, but i'll do most of my stuff wired methinks :p
What we REALLY need is 10-gigabit ethernet standard. Gigabit is now becoming standard among too many companies! apple needs to lead the way into the future!
The high speed interfaces of the future are going to be verrrry nice. I wonder if we'll have infiniband as an option instead of just fibrechannel.
ipodG8TR
Aug 16, 11:08 AM
Both companies have cult-like followings (Apple and Stern, and let's face it, Stern is Sirius)
Allow Sirius subscribers to get satellite radio on their ipods, maybe even download a limited portion to the HD.
But the killer feature is the ability to BOOKMARK a song you like and buy it from iTunes later or over the air for those who want wireless.
I already have a lifetime Sirius subscription as well as numerous Apple products including an ipod.
PLEASE make it happen and don't let the Zune get this feature first.
Allow Sirius subscribers to get satellite radio on their ipods, maybe even download a limited portion to the HD.
But the killer feature is the ability to BOOKMARK a song you like and buy it from iTunes later or over the air for those who want wireless.
I already have a lifetime Sirius subscription as well as numerous Apple products including an ipod.
PLEASE make it happen and don't let the Zune get this feature first.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 1, 01:19 PM
Is there really a big market for a 23" iMac @ 2000? I hope this rumor is bogus. I'd much rather see Apple come out with a headless Gaming mid-tower with a Core 2 Duo Extreme and X1600 card. Dual HD bays and one optical bay. AP/BT built in. 3 PCIe slots (one used by X1600). I think that would would fill a gap Apple has in their consumer line-up right now.
mharpo
Sep 27, 02:07 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
bubbalwz
Sep 6, 03:55 PM
cmon apple. get a clue.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
A-freakin-men.
these little mini's are nice but not great. there is a real void in your product lineup.
we need something with like a intel conroe chip, larger case, the ability to put in a better graphics card, and the basics like more ram, bigger hard drive and stuff.
give us a bigger mid sized tower type computer.
we all don't want to buy something with a screen. nor do we want some tiny puny non-upgradeable thing like the mac mini.
give us better options.
A-freakin-men.
tokevino
Aug 7, 12:31 AM
Anybody have any idea when the video of the event will be posted based on the past? How quick do they get it online?
Usually several hours after the keynote... and then there is the "mad rush" because everyone wants a piece of hat keynote video. Traffic will slow down after eastern coast and central U.S. past mid-night. So if you are on the western coast, stay up late after 9PM and enjoy the show w/ popcorns.:)
Usually several hours after the keynote... and then there is the "mad rush" because everyone wants a piece of hat keynote video. Traffic will slow down after eastern coast and central U.S. past mid-night. So if you are on the western coast, stay up late after 9PM and enjoy the show w/ popcorns.:)
MacinDoc
Sep 6, 11:14 AM
What? No Core2 Duo? Why? The Core2 Duo costs the same as the Core Duo, according to Intel's price list. Is there a shortage of the Core2 chips, was Apple committed to purchasing a certain number of Core Duos, or was whoever decided to go with this configuration just temporarily insane?
archer75
Apr 19, 11:33 AM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 6, 02:23 PM
Why do Americans harbor hate for diesel? I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
dguisinger
Aug 7, 03:35 AM
Have you tried rubyonrails? I've done some webservices for testing, and this is very slick.
Just give it a testdrive (www.rubyonrails.com)
Not really what I'm looking for, I'm trying to connect a Cocoa-app to a web service with minimal work; Rubyonrails looks like its primarily for developing web applications. But thanks anyways.
Just give it a testdrive (www.rubyonrails.com)
Not really what I'm looking for, I'm trying to connect a Cocoa-app to a web service with minimal work; Rubyonrails looks like its primarily for developing web applications. But thanks anyways.
Thirdeye9
Apr 11, 09:18 AM
All this discussion is apple's cap of tea for :) because we don't speculate if there is any mp3 player better than classic ipod. The only enemy of apple is apple.
I have now big problem, because i ve got Nokia C7, which has everything i would like from ipod touch, but ipod classic is not a really good choice for me... the only thing i apreciate in it is an enormous hdd, but due to its communicating only via itunes - i can't use it for different files than multimedia. If i could store there other files i would buy it. So i hope Apple will release new model with OS which will solve the problem :)
I have now big problem, because i ve got Nokia C7, which has everything i would like from ipod touch, but ipod classic is not a really good choice for me... the only thing i apreciate in it is an enormous hdd, but due to its communicating only via itunes - i can't use it for different files than multimedia. If i could store there other files i would buy it. So i hope Apple will release new model with OS which will solve the problem :)
URFloorMatt
Apr 2, 09:05 PM
Much, much better than the recent slate of iPhone ads, which have been terrible. (The "If you don't have an iPhone, well, you don't have an iPhone" ads.)
Flowbee
Jan 11, 09:27 PM
i personaly would go wiht the ipod becuse it is made by apple witch...
Apple witch?
Apple witch?
mrgreen4242
Aug 29, 03:43 PM
I also think that making the mini bigger makes sense. I mean the Cube was a wonderful design and a few times larger than the mini.
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
We've all been crying for a new cube since the mini came out... is the mini an awesome machine? Absolutely, I love mine. But there is a market for a headless iMac/Cube/MacPro mini... people like me. I don't need a quad core computer. I don't need 16gb of RAM. I don't need 4 harddrive bays, or even two optical drive slots.
I do want a fast CPU, an upgradable GPU, a couple of full size HDDs and a full size optical drive. I also want something quiet, relatively affordable (something a bit less than an iMac would be idea), and stylish.
I don't think that Apple would lose Mac Pro sales to something like this - they might lose iMac sales but if the margins are the same for them who cares, and any loss of mini sales would be upsells, so it'd be a good thing.
I think a lot PC types, especially gamers, would be interested, bringing in new markets... None of my gamer friends would be satisfied by an iMac, but neither would they shell out $2-3k for a Mac Pro.
Let's see, the mini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, would anyone even notice if it went to 8.5x8.5x4? Even better would be 8x8x8, just for the cube dimensions, done in iPod white (or black), would look stellar on a desktop. Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz, 4 RAM slots for an 8gb max with 512mb installed stock, 1 16x PCIe w/ 7300GT base (BTO options), 1 PCI slot, 2 3.5" drive bays w/ 160gb standard, 1 5.25" bay w/ SD, AE, BT2, 6 USB2 (4 back, 2 front), 1 FW 400, 1 eSATA (in place of FW800)... $999 anyone? BTO options for slower/fast CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, bigger HDD and a $200 TV tuner/video encoder breakout box... :D
Both of them have external power supplies, which from an esthetic point of view isn't the most pleasing. A larger design could potentially include an interal power supply, although it might make it a good deal nosier, I'm not sure.
We've all been crying for a new cube since the mini came out... is the mini an awesome machine? Absolutely, I love mine. But there is a market for a headless iMac/Cube/MacPro mini... people like me. I don't need a quad core computer. I don't need 16gb of RAM. I don't need 4 harddrive bays, or even two optical drive slots.
I do want a fast CPU, an upgradable GPU, a couple of full size HDDs and a full size optical drive. I also want something quiet, relatively affordable (something a bit less than an iMac would be idea), and stylish.
I don't think that Apple would lose Mac Pro sales to something like this - they might lose iMac sales but if the margins are the same for them who cares, and any loss of mini sales would be upsells, so it'd be a good thing.
I think a lot PC types, especially gamers, would be interested, bringing in new markets... None of my gamer friends would be satisfied by an iMac, but neither would they shell out $2-3k for a Mac Pro.
Let's see, the mini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, would anyone even notice if it went to 8.5x8.5x4? Even better would be 8x8x8, just for the cube dimensions, done in iPod white (or black), would look stellar on a desktop. Core 2 Duo 1.83ghz, 4 RAM slots for an 8gb max with 512mb installed stock, 1 16x PCIe w/ 7300GT base (BTO options), 1 PCI slot, 2 3.5" drive bays w/ 160gb standard, 1 5.25" bay w/ SD, AE, BT2, 6 USB2 (4 back, 2 front), 1 FW 400, 1 eSATA (in place of FW800)... $999 anyone? BTO options for slower/fast CPUs and GPUs, more RAM, bigger HDD and a $200 TV tuner/video encoder breakout box... :D
guzhogi
Nov 15, 10:16 AM
Applications should be, and most likely are written to take advantage of available resources. A developer should be writing applications to take advantage of 8-cores already, they don't need an 8-core machine to do so.
I agree. I wonder how idle the graphics card is when not using games. It would really help if more programmers were able to write programs that take advantage of the graphics card and audio card. Too bad SoundBlaster cards are Windows only. I wonder how much faster ripping CDs and converting to different audio formats in iTunes would be if the instructions got offloaded to a Soundblaster or other sound card.
I also heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up video processing and has something like OpenGL, but called OpenRL for video processing.. Would be cool if Aspex & Apple teamed up to make a card for Mac Pros to speed up Final Cut Pro & iMovie. Just my 2 cents.
I agree. I wonder how idle the graphics card is when not using games. It would really help if more programmers were able to write programs that take advantage of the graphics card and audio card. Too bad SoundBlaster cards are Windows only. I wonder how much faster ripping CDs and converting to different audio formats in iTunes would be if the instructions got offloaded to a Soundblaster or other sound card.
I also heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up video processing and has something like OpenGL, but called OpenRL for video processing.. Would be cool if Aspex & Apple teamed up to make a card for Mac Pros to speed up Final Cut Pro & iMovie. Just my 2 cents.
akkkmed
Jan 8, 10:42 AM
2008 Pontiac G6. Lease is up soon...
(Not my picture)
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3048/3101/32619050002_large.jpg
(Not my picture)
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/3048/3101/32619050002_large.jpg