manic
Sep 5, 03:10 PM
In any event, unless it's HD (720p is fine) I'm not interested. For that matter, when they give me Lost in HD (and a good way to get it to my TV) I'll check out the TV shows.
I would love that too, but im not convinced its feasible. 720p movie trailer downloads account roughly to 50mb for every minute. therefore, a 120min feature film would equal to 6GB. thats a lot of bandwidth, and the shoddy superdrives in current macbooks are only single-layer (grunf!).
But if its real, and they manage it for ~$14, man, ill start (re)building my movie collection! dont really care for 1080p (actually, i do, but then 12gb per film is just too much for me to bother downloading)
i guess if thats the case, 160gb 2.5" sata hds will be the absolute bare minimum, plus a stationary external hd with some 500+gb to cope with the new digital library AND time machine
I would love that too, but im not convinced its feasible. 720p movie trailer downloads account roughly to 50mb for every minute. therefore, a 120min feature film would equal to 6GB. thats a lot of bandwidth, and the shoddy superdrives in current macbooks are only single-layer (grunf!).
But if its real, and they manage it for ~$14, man, ill start (re)building my movie collection! dont really care for 1080p (actually, i do, but then 12gb per film is just too much for me to bother downloading)
i guess if thats the case, 160gb 2.5" sata hds will be the absolute bare minimum, plus a stationary external hd with some 500+gb to cope with the new digital library AND time machine
bearcatrp
Apr 20, 10:10 AM
This is total BS. We should have been informed of this and a way to turn it off or delete the file on our own. As for the poster above who stated it only goes to your computer, I highly doubt it. This is another big brother tracking honest citizens. Hope a class action does happen. I will definitely sign on!
seenew
Aug 31, 02:03 PM
There will are not relay organized at AppleExpo
Wtf does that even mean?!
Wtf does that even mean?!
Drew n macs
Mar 22, 02:51 PM
Quite a few people seem like they upgraded their MBP from 2010 MBP to 2011 mbp, Maybe just to have the latest product. Its possible that the imac will be released in 4-6 week time period and still no use for TB port...and finally when hard drives are released everyone will be outraged at the premium they will have to pay.
After G
Sep 14, 02:17 AM
I think that the phone interface won't have a click-wheel. Rather, it will be all screen with an on-screen wheel changing to an on-screen keypad. No slider action whatsoever. Maybe a hard switch for on/off, answer, and phonebook, but that's about all I'd put on the phone. It'll save on cost and hardware complexity too, not having to include a wheel.
Interface? Regular phone ... may be a smartphone if they figure out how to do the keyboard. Input is always questionable on small devices because there isn't room. Bluetooth perhaps? That's more $ down the drain for a keyboard :(
I hope I have the funds to buy one when one of these suckers comes out. Both GSM and CDMA would be better, but if there's only one, it should be GSM. It's easier for people to switch their phones that way, instead of having the cellphone stores cluttered up.
Good thing my sister's RAZR is dying ... maybe I'll tell her to get someone else's phone (on the cheap) when these drop (if she doesn't have enough for an Apple phone).
Interface? Regular phone ... may be a smartphone if they figure out how to do the keyboard. Input is always questionable on small devices because there isn't room. Bluetooth perhaps? That's more $ down the drain for a keyboard :(
I hope I have the funds to buy one when one of these suckers comes out. Both GSM and CDMA would be better, but if there's only one, it should be GSM. It's easier for people to switch their phones that way, instead of having the cellphone stores cluttered up.
Good thing my sister's RAZR is dying ... maybe I'll tell her to get someone else's phone (on the cheap) when these drop (if she doesn't have enough for an Apple phone).
Unorthodox
Aug 28, 12:10 PM
This Tuesday! This Tuesday!
aohus
Apr 20, 12:23 PM
android enthusiast here.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
ChrisA
Jan 11, 04:08 PM
...
��We��ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most. These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time,..
TRANSLATION: Someday, maybe in the future if this trend continues and Apple screws up, you might need our product.
The ONLY reason PC user find this crap usful id because Microsoft screwed up the way security is handled and users require a band aid type patch
Apple did make a few errors, they could do better. For example thy should not allow most "normal" programs to run on an admin account. iTunes and Safari and iPhoto and so on should simply refuse to run and put up a box teling you to log into a user account. Forcing user to run in non-admin accounts would make most Trojans ineffective. There is muh more that could be done.
��We��ve seen significant advancements in device and social network adoption, placing a bulls-eye on the platforms and services users are embracing the most. These platforms and services have become very popular in a short amount of time,..
TRANSLATION: Someday, maybe in the future if this trend continues and Apple screws up, you might need our product.
The ONLY reason PC user find this crap usful id because Microsoft screwed up the way security is handled and users require a band aid type patch
Apple did make a few errors, they could do better. For example thy should not allow most "normal" programs to run on an admin account. iTunes and Safari and iPhoto and so on should simply refuse to run and put up a box teling you to log into a user account. Forcing user to run in non-admin accounts would make most Trojans ineffective. There is muh more that could be done.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 12:58 PM
I just want them to bump up the Macbook so then I can go ahead and buy my fist Mac. I just want to buy it when its the most current.
Ya, that's that I'm hoping. For the same reason too. I've used macs forever, but never owned my very own (other than an old PowerMac 7500). I also hope they update the ipod soon, I want to get the latest and greatest but I need to order by wednesday :-p
Ya, that's that I'm hoping. For the same reason too. I've used macs forever, but never owned my very own (other than an old PowerMac 7500). I also hope they update the ipod soon, I want to get the latest and greatest but I need to order by wednesday :-p
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
malnar
Apr 20, 01:53 PM
Oh, my God! Somebody will know that I took the train! (If, of course, they are security researchers or police officers or vengeful wives who hire a tech detective). So what? Apple does what a responsible corporation must: it won't give out your location without your permission, each and every time.
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Azrel
Sep 9, 07:24 AM
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Yes of course it can, you obviously don't understand what x86_64 is.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Yes of course it can, you obviously don't understand what x86_64 is.
OdduWon
Sep 27, 12:25 AM
You're joking right? You realise these are pipe-dream mock ups right?
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
nice mock up. i've seen 4 like this after i had started making mine using the new ..ahem.. mini nano. but why, why have macrocrap apps on it?? the itunes viz is a nice touch tho. italk still my fav though.even though a phone with wings may become annoying at least it will come to you when it rings :D
vincenz
Apr 30, 02:33 PM
If I could, I would get rid of my mbp+acd for an iMac. Don't know why. Maybe I'm just restless.
MacNewsFix
Apr 28, 04:35 PM
Hey, maybe Steve can give Bill a loan. :p
http://mimg.ugo.com/201008/55577/pirates-of-silicon-valley.jpg
http://mimg.ugo.com/201008/55577/pirates-of-silicon-valley.jpg
EspressoLove
Apr 22, 07:08 PM
This may have been asked and answered before, but is the common belief that USB and Firewire will be completely gone soon? For example, my Macbook Air has room for only two ports - a mini-display drive, and a USB drive. Is the idea that the Thunderbolt drive will replace the USB, and that purchasers of the new Air will use an adapter of some sort for "old" USB peripherals moving forward?
If Apple has this expectation, they had better at least sell an appropriate adapter/hub. I've long thought a thin, form-matching hub that connects to all of the ports on one side of an Apple portable would be a great idea. If Apple can make a 2- or even 3-port USB hub off of the Thunderbolt port (especially if a Mini Display-Port is also available) for ~$50, that would be golden for this type of MBA plan.
You both think into it too much:
- FireWire was gone from Apple's "future of notebooks" since the beginning of time (2008:rolleyes:)
- Thunderbolt is not replacing USBs, it's a supplement to DisplayPort (and can connect to both display and peripherals simultaneously)
If Apple has this expectation, they had better at least sell an appropriate adapter/hub. I've long thought a thin, form-matching hub that connects to all of the ports on one side of an Apple portable would be a great idea. If Apple can make a 2- or even 3-port USB hub off of the Thunderbolt port (especially if a Mini Display-Port is also available) for ~$50, that would be golden for this type of MBA plan.
You both think into it too much:
- FireWire was gone from Apple's "future of notebooks" since the beginning of time (2008:rolleyes:)
- Thunderbolt is not replacing USBs, it's a supplement to DisplayPort (and can connect to both display and peripherals simultaneously)
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:25 PM
They should have come out with red Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros, now those would be hot items.:p
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 12:54 AM
Rodimus I think you misunderstand. When I flew up on her I slowed down. I signaled for her to move over to the "slow lane," she did not. After I signaled her again, she brakechecked me. When she did that, I passed her, waited till there was a car on her side and then slammed on my brakes, forcing her into the service lane, in order to avoid hitting me.
-Don
And the stupidity of this story increases.
You have now just introduced road rage into what you did.
Btw if she hit you on that legally speaking YOU would be responsible for the wreck since you did that on purpose to case a wreck.
Remember you are a bad driver and will be for at least the next 5 years. You lack the experience to judge road conditions and learn what is important and not important to track. Your brain while you are driving is having to do a lot more work than lets say my brain at processing all the information it is bring in while you are driving. It does not have a data base built up yet to learn what can be tossed out and what is important. You are actively have to do it. Compared to someone who has 5+ years under their belt who's brain can filter threw and only deal with the important stuff. This leave much more processing power to deal with said important stuff.
-Don
And the stupidity of this story increases.
You have now just introduced road rage into what you did.
Btw if she hit you on that legally speaking YOU would be responsible for the wreck since you did that on purpose to case a wreck.
Remember you are a bad driver and will be for at least the next 5 years. You lack the experience to judge road conditions and learn what is important and not important to track. Your brain while you are driving is having to do a lot more work than lets say my brain at processing all the information it is bring in while you are driving. It does not have a data base built up yet to learn what can be tossed out and what is important. You are actively have to do it. Compared to someone who has 5+ years under their belt who's brain can filter threw and only deal with the important stuff. This leave much more processing power to deal with said important stuff.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 11:37 AM
No, I mean the lowest repair/return rate of the whole industry, and the highest praise in terms of support and reliability of the whole market...care to take a look around, perhaps?
We all know how public problems with Apple may get...1 PowerBook down is worth 1000 DOA Dells that never make it to the news...or perhaps you think the existence of iFixIt means all Macs are cracked...right? :rolleyes:Fixed!
I have to repair an iBook G3 this week. :rolleyes:
We all know how public problems with Apple may get...1 PowerBook down is worth 1000 DOA Dells that never make it to the news...or perhaps you think the existence of iFixIt means all Macs are cracked...right? :rolleyes:Fixed!
I have to repair an iBook G3 this week. :rolleyes:
skwert
Sep 13, 09:06 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
their amazing design and interface...the reason why people buy all their other stuff. not to mention the sexy idea of ichat mobile
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
their amazing design and interface...the reason why people buy all their other stuff. not to mention the sexy idea of ichat mobile
praetorian909
Sep 13, 07:34 AM
Does anyone know how to get into the quick search on the 5G iPods? I updated mine with the 1.2 software but I only see the quick scrolling letter thing.
It seems like this feature is only available only on the new iPod (as many people previously mentioned). I can't help but wonder if this was purposefully left out, because you'd think it be easily added in a firmware update.
Oh well, the quick scroll thing is good enough for me...
It seems like this feature is only available only on the new iPod (as many people previously mentioned). I can't help but wonder if this was purposefully left out, because you'd think it be easily added in a firmware update.
Oh well, the quick scroll thing is good enough for me...
Lightivity
Sep 20, 04:37 AM
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC.
Not correct. Most Hollywood movies are encoded as interlaced and then pressed to dvd, just to be sure that all tv-sets (old and new) are able to display the content. If all film dvd:s were to be encoded as progressive, we wouldn't need all these more or less expensive deinterlacers in digital display systems (progressive in nature) and video sources. And also, we would need interlacers in all analogue displays (interlaced in nature)...not realistic.
Reference:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#3.8 and
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#1.40 (esp. second paragraph)
Not correct. Most Hollywood movies are encoded as interlaced and then pressed to dvd, just to be sure that all tv-sets (old and new) are able to display the content. If all film dvd:s were to be encoded as progressive, we wouldn't need all these more or less expensive deinterlacers in digital display systems (progressive in nature) and video sources. And also, we would need interlacers in all analogue displays (interlaced in nature)...not realistic.
Reference:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#3.8 and
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#1.40 (esp. second paragraph)
notjustjay
Sep 19, 02:15 PM
Now they just need to work on a little region of the world called... oh... everywhere outside the United States.
I do happen to have an account on the US iTunes store, and I availed myself last night of the free download of "Lost". While it wasn't a movie, it was still almost a gig (1.5 hours of video I suppose) and probably similar in size and quality to a movie.
On my DSL connection, it took about 7 hours. I let it go overnight.
Not quite the 30 minutes that Steve promised. :P
I am, however, starting to see why they allowed a sneak preview of iTV. Look how many of us are saying "I can't wait for iTV!" now that we've had some time to experiment with iTunes movie downloads!
I do happen to have an account on the US iTunes store, and I availed myself last night of the free download of "Lost". While it wasn't a movie, it was still almost a gig (1.5 hours of video I suppose) and probably similar in size and quality to a movie.
On my DSL connection, it took about 7 hours. I let it go overnight.
Not quite the 30 minutes that Steve promised. :P
I am, however, starting to see why they allowed a sneak preview of iTV. Look how many of us are saying "I can't wait for iTV!" now that we've had some time to experiment with iTunes movie downloads!
Kaibelf
Apr 20, 11:45 AM
So how would I go about encrypting this backup file on my Mac?
It's an option in iTunes, right on the main sync page when you choose your device. Nothing obscure.
It's an option in iTunes, right on the main sync page when you choose your device. Nothing obscure.
No comments:
Post a Comment