spencers
Nov 23, 04:54 PM
Two of these
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7010/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg (http://img80.imageshack.us/i/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg/)
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7010/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg (http://img80.imageshack.us/i/3607031821d81ef5335b.jpg/)
pyramid6
Nov 28, 03:13 PM
I would argue, that MS success isn't because of it's OS, it's because of third party support.
Take Windows. It's horrible, but too many companies have too much software invested in Windows software.
Take the XBox, the X box was built on DirectX, which made it much easier to program than the PS2. So third party companies could program for the XBox.
The Zune is from scratch, no third party companies to help push it. No corprate ITs to demand you buy it and use it.
The Zune is what Microsoft is without its monopoly.
Take Windows. It's horrible, but too many companies have too much software invested in Windows software.
Take the XBox, the X box was built on DirectX, which made it much easier to program than the PS2. So third party companies could program for the XBox.
The Zune is from scratch, no third party companies to help push it. No corprate ITs to demand you buy it and use it.
The Zune is what Microsoft is without its monopoly.
marksman
Mar 25, 04:14 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Who would have thought that Apple would be able to start the underpinnings of a mobile console gaming like device, in only its second generation.
Vision, people. Vision.
Who would have thought that Apple would be able to start the underpinnings of a mobile console gaming like device, in only its second generation.
Digital Dude
Mar 24, 02:07 PM
This is HUGE, ginormous news. If Lion, or even later released of Snow Leopard, has this kind of support, ti would revitalize the Mac gaming scene. Even 3D artists would have more options, especially when you consider how well the high end consumer cards stack up against their FireGL competition.
Now all they need is complete 6900 series support-- yeah, I'm lookin' at you, 6990. ;-)
Not likely since Steve Jobs isn't smart enough to do that. Heck, he still believes that glossy displays are a cool idea.
I almost gave up on the MacPro until Steve forced me into a 'NON-GLARE' NEC PA271, and all I can say is wow! Even with the pithy GT120 card-less piece of crap offering by Apple, the screen looks fantastic.
Now all they need is complete 6900 series support-- yeah, I'm lookin' at you, 6990. ;-)
Not likely since Steve Jobs isn't smart enough to do that. Heck, he still believes that glossy displays are a cool idea.
I almost gave up on the MacPro until Steve forced me into a 'NON-GLARE' NEC PA271, and all I can say is wow! Even with the pithy GT120 card-less piece of crap offering by Apple, the screen looks fantastic.
noservice2001
Oct 23, 07:15 AM
o please red!!!
dime21
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Yep - I'm not sure that I have ever even been in an automatic!
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
sineplex
Sep 29, 02:13 AM
Still satisfied with my dermashot. It really hasn't collected much dust. If your on the wall still about a silicon case, check it out.
Bill
Thanks Bill - I just got mine in the mail today.
You said the screen protector isn't great and I've decided to not even use a screen protector now and go naked and just use the Dermashot cover to protect the back. It looks really great, will pick up my 32GB IPT4 before the weekend.
Bill
Thanks Bill - I just got mine in the mail today.
You said the screen protector isn't great and I've decided to not even use a screen protector now and go naked and just use the Dermashot cover to protect the back. It looks really great, will pick up my 32GB IPT4 before the weekend.
macmax77
Nov 29, 05:29 PM
Perhaps Microsoft should have a "switch" campaign like Apple for the Zune. Showing all the wonderful things like radio and squirting music and photos.
Wonderful equals bad taste?
Wonderful equals bad taste?
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
titans1127
Sep 28, 09:21 PM
Does anyone know if the Belkin Grip Vue or Griffin Reveal will fit with a skin on the back such as a Zagg or Bodyguardz or Wrapsol(Original Matte)?
scottlinux
Oct 23, 02:06 PM
I don't know if this update is imminent. apple.com store still shows macbooks and mbp as shipping within 24 hours....
nemaslov
Mar 22, 06:41 PM
I have 50,000 plus songs in lossless. Mostly from my own CD collection. I know lots of people who want to take ALL there music on the road, to their studios when they travel or are DJs (we don't want to select a portion of our catalogues) . Maybe not a huge audience but a solid one. We just want to play back great music and not have multi touch web capabilities. It's about the music stupid!
TwinCities Dan
Nov 25, 06:18 PM
haha
so true
late entry to post of the year
may i suggest a case for when you're out on the road
:rolleyes: Wow, so you liked Surely's comment so much you had to pretend you came up with it? Ohhh, copykris, now I get it! :p
Let's get back to the purchases...
I bought 4 of these
261760
and some of this
261761
so true
late entry to post of the year
may i suggest a case for when you're out on the road
:rolleyes: Wow, so you liked Surely's comment so much you had to pretend you came up with it? Ohhh, copykris, now I get it! :p
Let's get back to the purchases...
I bought 4 of these
261760
and some of this
261761
Constable Odo
Mar 25, 04:46 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Vision, people. Vision.
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Macky-Mac
Mar 28, 01:12 PM
....Next you'll be saying that the US won WW1 and WW2.
so now you're going to say the US lost WW1 and WW2? :p
so now you're going to say the US lost WW1 and WW2? :p
yg17
Mar 22, 01:38 PM
Our Founding Fathers believed in God, proof alone is the pledge of allegiance "under god". Yes our country was founded on christian belief. Hate to say it, but it's true!
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
LMAO...Yes that's it, I don't meet age requirements!
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
Under god was added to the pledge in the 50s because we were scared of the Russians. Nevermind the fact that the Pledge was written in 1892, long after the Founding Fathers died.
What else you got?
LMAO...Yes that's it, I don't meet age requirements!
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
HunterMaximus
Nov 25, 03:47 PM
Looks practical. How much?
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:03 PM
The trailers in '11 were cute, but beyond that, it's not nearly good enough for polished output. If you want am, there's your option.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You feel that you get to dictate arbitrary standards that you cannot articulate with any specifics, and then belittle those who point out that another way of doing something can lead to superior results for them.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface.
Pro is not a code word for "stuck in the 1940s".
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You feel that you get to dictate arbitrary standards that you cannot articulate with any specifics, and then belittle those who point out that another way of doing something can lead to superior results for them.
All I'm asking is they leave final cut PRO to the pros who know how to use it and like the interface.
Pro is not a code word for "stuck in the 1940s".
Anawrahta
Sep 6, 06:07 PM
can they just announce the new MBPs already??
who cares about the movie store....OooH wow~! $10 movies, you can go to best buy and get a physical copy for just a little bit more. I sure hope this service will let you burn the movies to dvd otherwise it's dead to me.
who cares about the movie store....OooH wow~! $10 movies, you can go to best buy and get a physical copy for just a little bit more. I sure hope this service will let you burn the movies to dvd otherwise it's dead to me.
RaceTripper
Jan 22, 09:17 PM
They make racing and sport seats
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
fertilized-egg
Mar 24, 11:09 AM
For those of us with large libraries or store our music in uncompressed or at higher bit rates, the Classic is the only game in town.
There are still some quality HDD MP3s, most notably the Cowon X7, http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/cowon-x7-pmp-review/
There are still some quality HDD MP3s, most notably the Cowon X7, http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/cowon-x7-pmp-review/
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:58 PM
But why would Apple not do it my way by default??? Google did. Smart and logical of them.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
It might very well be an option by the time it is released in the summer. Like they say it is only a preview and so much is in flux.
islanders
Jan 3, 02:07 PM
I guess a 14�� laptop with a decent word processor is too much to ask for?
HecubusPro
Sep 6, 06:37 PM
What's stopping you from doing that now?
I know I have all of my iTMS video backed up to data DVDs...
I know I won't be spending $10-$15 for anything less than DVD quality though, so I hope there's either a rental model or at least 480p.
B
I do backup all of my ipod videos on DVD. I was talking in terms of rentals that so many people are interested in here. Apple would have to implement some sort of copy protection for people who simply want to rent for a few days, so the movies can't be backed up to DVD. Sort of like Divx DVD back in the day. You bought the movie for $5, then after 48 hours it was unusable.
This brings up another point. There are a lot of "hackers" out there who, I would think, wouldn't have a lot of difficulty breaking encryption or copy protection on the possible movie rentals from iTunes. I think that would be another reason Apple would avoid rentals.
I know I have all of my iTMS video backed up to data DVDs...
I know I won't be spending $10-$15 for anything less than DVD quality though, so I hope there's either a rental model or at least 480p.
B
I do backup all of my ipod videos on DVD. I was talking in terms of rentals that so many people are interested in here. Apple would have to implement some sort of copy protection for people who simply want to rent for a few days, so the movies can't be backed up to DVD. Sort of like Divx DVD back in the day. You bought the movie for $5, then after 48 hours it was unusable.
This brings up another point. There are a lot of "hackers" out there who, I would think, wouldn't have a lot of difficulty breaking encryption or copy protection on the possible movie rentals from iTunes. I think that would be another reason Apple would avoid rentals.
No comments:
Post a Comment