Evangelion
Jul 25, 10:57 AM
And you're really going to use all that are you?
What if he is?
With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers.
And most computer-users use Windows, so maybe we should all switch to Windows? Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems. To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.
What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks. Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.
I'm a pretty average computer user at home and with the exception of my camera, iPod and printer, I have no external devices.
Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.
Although I will be purchasing an external firewire drive at some point, I'd much rather have a small squarish metallic box on display behind my iMac than lose an extra three square feet of floor space due to needing a bigger desk.
Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items. And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.
Perhaps when you factor in the cost, the lost square footage of the room your computer is in should be taken into account.
Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.
What if he is?
With the exception of RAM and hard disks, most computer consumers never expand their computers.
And most computer-users use Windows, so maybe we should all switch to Windows? Point is that there ARE lots of people who like to expand their systems. To them, iMac is completely unsuitable, and PowerMac is simply too much (too much space, too much technology, too much money, you name it). There have been LOTS of people saying that they would love to see a relatively inexpensive Mac that is expandable. iMac is not that. Neither is PowerMac.
What happens if the screen in the iMac breaks down? The whole computer becomes useless. What if you need faster vid-card? you have to buy a new computer. All-in-one has it's benefits, but it has it's drawbacks, and there are lots of people who do not want those drawbacks. Yes, minitower (for example) has it's drawbacks as well, but there are lots of people who would be willing to accept those drawback for the benefits such a system offers.
I'm a pretty average computer user at home and with the exception of my camera, iPod and printer, I have no external devices.
Well good for you. How that helps ME is beyond me.
Although I will be purchasing an external firewire drive at some point, I'd much rather have a small squarish metallic box on display behind my iMac than lose an extra three square feet of floor space due to needing a bigger desk.
Are we using somekind of miniature-desks or something? I have a rather typical desk, and it currently has a Mac Mini, a TFT-screen, old, huge printer that does not work, and it still has plenty of space for mouse, keyboard and other items. And that "small metallic box" means that your iMac loses that all-in-one elegance it now has.
Perhaps when you factor in the cost, the lost square footage of the room your computer is in should be taken into account.
Some of us would be willing to accept that. A minitower would consume about as much desk-space as two Mac Mini's. That's more than reasonable IMO.
spicyapple
Aug 15, 09:54 AM
Safari improvements are most needed, especially Safari Find seems like something I'll use more often.
notabadname
Apr 22, 05:48 PM
That seems impossibly thin. Where are they going to put the hardware? Take the thickness of the glass and backlighting & the back-plate away and there's nothing left on the lower half.
Sceptic here.
Sceptic here.
DrJohnnyN
May 3, 07:42 AM
Cool!
more...
kalsta
Apr 26, 09:32 AM
I have the last model of 24" iMac that had an anti-glare screen. I just had to make the first repair, replaced the hard drive.
My fear is that I will be forced to build a Hackintosh or get an iMac with one of these new cheaper screens.
I stopped buying iMacs the day they went gloss. I now have a bunch of minis with the older Matte Cinema Displays. As simple as that � I put my money where my mouth is. If I couldn't get these, I would buy other branded displays.
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
My fear is that I will be forced to build a Hackintosh or get an iMac with one of these new cheaper screens.
I stopped buying iMacs the day they went gloss. I now have a bunch of minis with the older Matte Cinema Displays. As simple as that � I put my money where my mouth is. If I couldn't get these, I would buy other branded displays.
When Steve Jobs made a comment a couple of years ago about Apple's customers saying they preferred gloss (or something like that) I wrote to Apple to say that at least one customer doesn't prefer gloss and why, and there is a pretty vocal group of Apple customers who share my sentiments. At least we were given the option on the MacBook Pros. I hate having to pay extra on an already expensive machine, but that's what I've done with my new just-ordered MBP. It's one small and expensive vote for usability to prevail over eye-candy. Sigh.
derek1984
Apr 13, 01:59 PM
Touchscreen TV?!?
Panasonic owns Pioneer KURO technology. I won't hold my breath for this even if it does become true.
Panasonic owns Pioneer KURO technology. I won't hold my breath for this even if it does become true.
more...
Abstract
Dec 29, 02:28 PM
The program in the US Army (basic training) was designed to burn 5000 calories a day. Basically you were moving 16 hours a day. Just can think of doing 12k or 30k calories a day.
Anyone know how many calories someone burns running a marathon?
Michael Phelps consumes 13000 calories/day, but he's a world-class athlete, not a world-class cow.
Anyone know how many calories someone burns running a marathon?
Michael Phelps consumes 13000 calories/day, but he's a world-class athlete, not a world-class cow.
digitalbiker
Oct 19, 12:02 PM
everytime apple has posted earnings in the past 2 years, i wake up the following morning and go 'why didnt i ever invest in apple'.
Damnit.
Apple hasn't done that well over the last year.
It has done great over the last 6 - 7 years but it has been fairly static over the last year or so.
In fact last year in January it was higher than it is right now.
Damnit.
Apple hasn't done that well over the last year.
It has done great over the last 6 - 7 years but it has been fairly static over the last year or so.
In fact last year in January it was higher than it is right now.
more...
diamond.g
Apr 27, 08:16 AM
SATA is also bi-directional....
Pointing out that TBolt speed is of the same order of magnitude as SATA speed isn't trashing - it's countering some of the TBolt hype. Some people seem to think that TBolt is infinitely fast.
Agree with you that the real promise of TBolt is to bring PCIe expansion to systems without PCIe slots.
On first glance I was hoping it would be a reasonably cheaper replacement for FC, but that doesn't appear to be the case...
Pointing out that TBolt speed is of the same order of magnitude as SATA speed isn't trashing - it's countering some of the TBolt hype. Some people seem to think that TBolt is infinitely fast.
Agree with you that the real promise of TBolt is to bring PCIe expansion to systems without PCIe slots.
On first glance I was hoping it would be a reasonably cheaper replacement for FC, but that doesn't appear to be the case...
rovex
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
WHOOOOOOOOO CARES
It's called "the principle". ;)
It's called "the principle". ;)
more...
YoNeX
Nov 5, 04:39 PM
They want screenshots and numbers, but since the EULA says we cannot disclose numbers, not much left but screenshots. Oh and for the record, I was not able to get my XP to install properly. Tried about 3x. As for my choice, Parallels for stability, but VMware for the multi-core support. I'll leave it at that.
Lesser Evets
Apr 28, 04:18 PM
OMG... it's .2mm thicker. STOP THE PRESSES!
more...
longofest
Dec 1, 02:43 PM
Sober up, Steve. Less time on Time Machine and more time on solidifying the system.
AppleTalk: Who uses it, and why?
I'm pretty sure that any time you use Personal file sharing, you are using AppleTalk.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
AFP versions 3.0 and greater rely exclusively on TCP/IP (port 548 or 427) for establishing communication, supporting AppleTalk only as a service discovery protocol. The AFP 2.x family supports both TCP/IP and AppleTalk for communication and service discovery. Many third-party AFP implementations use AFP 2.x, thereby supporting AppleTalk as a connection method. Still earlier versions rely exclusively on AppleTalk. For this reason, some older literature refers to AFP as "AppleTalk Filing Protocol". Other literature may refer to AFP as "AppleShare," the name of the Mac OS 9 (and earlier) AFP client.
AppleTalk: Who uses it, and why?
I'm pretty sure that any time you use Personal file sharing, you are using AppleTalk.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
AFP versions 3.0 and greater rely exclusively on TCP/IP (port 548 or 427) for establishing communication, supporting AppleTalk only as a service discovery protocol. The AFP 2.x family supports both TCP/IP and AppleTalk for communication and service discovery. Many third-party AFP implementations use AFP 2.x, thereby supporting AppleTalk as a connection method. Still earlier versions rely exclusively on AppleTalk. For this reason, some older literature refers to AFP as "AppleTalk Filing Protocol". Other literature may refer to AFP as "AppleShare," the name of the Mac OS 9 (and earlier) AFP client.
joneill55
Apr 14, 11:00 AM
You'd have to be a chump to buy a new iPhone now.
Every soccer mom and high school girls rejoices. The White iPhone is coming!
Every soccer mom and high school girls rejoices. The White iPhone is coming!
more...
ezekielrage_99
Jul 24, 11:49 PM
So, in conclusion - get the S530 instead!
http://www.logitech.com/lang/images/0/12135.jpg.
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=2162,CONTENTID=11420
http://www.cancomuk.com/products/searchresults.lasso?code=58886
I got one of those a few weeks ago and it rocks, Apple keyboard and mouses just don't compete.
http://www.logitech.com/lang/images/0/12135.jpg.
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=2162,CONTENTID=11420
http://www.cancomuk.com/products/searchresults.lasso?code=58886
I got one of those a few weeks ago and it rocks, Apple keyboard and mouses just don't compete.
eji
Jul 24, 05:16 PM
My guess is that it'll be upwards of $70. Which is way too much to pay for a mouse. Like someone else posted earlier, I'm still kind of shocked that I paid $50 for my regular Mighty Mouse. Though I do think it's the bees knees.
As for the wireless bit... well, wasn't it only a matter of time?
As for the wireless bit... well, wasn't it only a matter of time?
more...
nw_mike
Dec 1, 03:33 PM
Once someone 'proves' that installation into your System folder, NOT your user space, can be done without an Administrative account THAT will be newsworthy. Making Safari launch a certain web page can be done with preference/.plist files. These are in the USER space. I have yet to see or hear about a compromise of Mac OS X 10.4.8 that does Administrative tampering using a non-admin account (without physical access to the machine). Now I, and many others have submitted feedback to Apple that they have to include, in initial setup of a Mac system, the requirement of setting up a non-admin account. This is security 101 and something neither MS or Apple currently requires. Once you are an Admin all bets are off. We have all seen the installers that you double click and don't require a password to install. Scary. Apple needs to REMAIN diligent on security, but they are not totally lax like some suggest.
just my .02
just my .02
MrMoore
Mar 31, 03:33 PM
To be fair, the brushed metal interface first debuted in 1999 with Quicktime 4.0. Compared to the horrendous user interfaces of the time period, that looks amazing. It is sad though that it took them until leopard to get rid of it...
It's not the brush metal that was bad. It was the Volume Dial on the left side to appear like a dial on a device. To change the volume was difficult.
It's not the brush metal that was bad. It was the Volume Dial on the left side to appear like a dial on a device. To change the volume was difficult.
colonels1020
Apr 23, 09:22 PM
oh god please i hope so
mdriftmeyer
Jul 21, 01:26 PM
schiller also said � i think the day before boot camp was announced � that apple wouldn't prevent users from putting windows on the intel macs, but they wouldn't facilitate it either.
apple is notorious for saying one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite the video ipod being a perfect example. i'm not saying it will happen, i'm just saying don't put much stock in comments from apple execs regarding future products.
What's your point?
Dual Boot allowing for multiple OS's to be selected at boot time vs. true virtualization allowing multiple OS's to be instantiated within OS X, albeit at a reduced performance aren't contradicting Phil's two statements.
We provide the boot loader.
Parallels provides the virtual solution. If you want native speed then you can run reboot into a different OS with boot camp. If you don't then go with Parallels.
apple is notorious for saying one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite the video ipod being a perfect example. i'm not saying it will happen, i'm just saying don't put much stock in comments from apple execs regarding future products.
What's your point?
Dual Boot allowing for multiple OS's to be selected at boot time vs. true virtualization allowing multiple OS's to be instantiated within OS X, albeit at a reduced performance aren't contradicting Phil's two statements.
We provide the boot loader.
Parallels provides the virtual solution. If you want native speed then you can run reboot into a different OS with boot camp. If you don't then go with Parallels.
reckless2k2
Apr 25, 11:26 AM
I just bought one Friday. I guess I'm returning it.
7on
Jul 25, 10:16 AM
oh, I forgot to mention one good thing about this mouse. Presumably it will work correctly with the option "allow bluetooth devices to wake this computer." 3rd party mice wake the computer up over and over ever since 10.4.6 when that option is checked. Of course, it would be nicer if apple would just fix their stupid OS version so that all BT mice worked correctly and not just their own... :rolleyes:
3rd party mice "phone home" to the computer thus waking it up. 3rd party mice need to fix this.
3rd party mice "phone home" to the computer thus waking it up. 3rd party mice need to fix this.
Snowy_River
Jul 26, 06:08 PM
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
tactile |?taktl; ?tak?t?l|
adjective
� of or connected with the sense of touch
� perceptible by touch or apparently so; tangible
� designed to be perceived by touch
Tactile means that you touch it! If you touch something you get a tactile feedback from it, unless your finger is numb. Thus, if you're waving you hand over control, you get no tactile feedback. Whereas, even if the control doesn't push in, the simple act of touching a control does give tactile feedback. (Perhaps less tactile feedback than a control that does push in, but it still gives tactile feedback.)
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
Irrelevant. If you push a key on the keyboard of a dead computer it behaves the same as pressing the key on the keyboard of a working computer. So, by your logic, these keys that press down give no tactile feedback.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
My point was not to say that your suggestion was not possible, just that it was a small step above what already exists, as opposed to a revolutionary leap forward based on the description in the patent. Of course, for anyone who knows a little bit about patent writing and patent law, what's written in the patent is probably the broadest possible applications that Apple can think of to include in their patent.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
And if a better material were easily available, don't you think they'd be using it? :rolleyes:
tactile |?taktl; ?tak?t?l|
adjective
� of or connected with the sense of touch
� perceptible by touch or apparently so; tangible
� designed to be perceived by touch
Tactile means that you touch it! If you touch something you get a tactile feedback from it, unless your finger is numb. Thus, if you're waving you hand over control, you get no tactile feedback. Whereas, even if the control doesn't push in, the simple act of touching a control does give tactile feedback. (Perhaps less tactile feedback than a control that does push in, but it still gives tactile feedback.)
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
Irrelevant. If you push a key on the keyboard of a dead computer it behaves the same as pressing the key on the keyboard of a working computer. So, by your logic, these keys that press down give no tactile feedback.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
My point was not to say that your suggestion was not possible, just that it was a small step above what already exists, as opposed to a revolutionary leap forward based on the description in the patent. Of course, for anyone who knows a little bit about patent writing and patent law, what's written in the patent is probably the broadest possible applications that Apple can think of to include in their patent.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
And if a better material were easily available, don't you think they'd be using it? :rolleyes:
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 09:53 AM
Google bought Android and with Schmidt on the Apple board hoovering up ideas from the iPhone, Android became what it is today.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
or a troll or all of them.
And now, lets get back to OS X.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
or a troll or all of them.
And now, lets get back to OS X.
No comments:
Post a Comment