backsidetailsli
Nov 24, 07:31 AM
add Shnitzlizr lets race!
http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/gt5rd.jpg
http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/gt5rd.jpg
Earendil
Nov 27, 09:52 PM
Funny that you say "accurate" color.....
Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.
Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that issue. I do not mention it because it is an anomaly in the build. Dell also had backlight bleed problems with the 2005ftw units (and by all reports, wasn't handled all that well by Dell).
However which panel each company decides to use in their product is a choice, the results of which will effect every monitor in the line up. Do you see the difference there?
True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.
Yes, but some panels are far more prone to the color shifting with time. Also the evenness of the color/contrast/backlighting has to be even across the entire screen. Color calibration units only measure a small part of the screen in order to create a color profile that your computer will apply to the entire screen. That profile will not help you if the screen is imbalanced.
Dell, quite honestly, doesn't care about the prosumer market. THis is obvious in their recent choice to take their 23" monitor from 8 bits per color down to 6. So instead of 24 bit color, you get 18 bit color which is then dithered to get 24 bit color. For those that don't understand color bit depth,
18 bit = 262,144 colors
24 bit = 16,777,216 colors
Why would Dell do this you ask? Because they can now drop their response time to 6ms from 16ms. That's right, they made a change that severally effects the color quality in order to archive one of the few stats that people use and see to buy a monitor.
There is far more to monitors than ms, contrast, and even color accuracy. There are people in this thread that seem to think that all monitors are created equal but for the case they are put in, or that there is only one component inside the case. To these people of course monitor prices should all be about the same.
Before anyone screams foul on Apple pricing ONE more time I dear you to go to www.NEC.com and check out the different monitors sold by them. You can pay $2000 for a 20" there if you like.
Monitors are just like most computer hardware, not all created equal, not all priced equal. Weigh you needs with your budget, research the product, and make a choice that's right for you. If Apple doesn't offer a choice that fits your equation, that sucks (happened to me), but fortunately there are a hundred other companies out there, one of which might just offer what you require.
Cheers,
~Tyler
Anyone ever hear of the "Pinkening" of the Apple displays over the last 2 years? If you haven't then you may have seen it on your trips to the Apple Store.
Apple LCDs have had a nasty habit of having a Pink hue to them that you cannot dial out of the display. Granted, Apple has been pretty good at replacing these models, but it has been a major issue to those it has affected.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that issue. I do not mention it because it is an anomaly in the build. Dell also had backlight bleed problems with the 2005ftw units (and by all reports, wasn't handled all that well by Dell).
However which panel each company decides to use in their product is a choice, the results of which will effect every monitor in the line up. Do you see the difference there?
True accurate color will only be had by using color calibration units. So with that rebutle I will say that you will be able to achieve "accurate" color with that $250 LCD monitor from Best Buy.
Yes, but some panels are far more prone to the color shifting with time. Also the evenness of the color/contrast/backlighting has to be even across the entire screen. Color calibration units only measure a small part of the screen in order to create a color profile that your computer will apply to the entire screen. That profile will not help you if the screen is imbalanced.
Dell, quite honestly, doesn't care about the prosumer market. THis is obvious in their recent choice to take their 23" monitor from 8 bits per color down to 6. So instead of 24 bit color, you get 18 bit color which is then dithered to get 24 bit color. For those that don't understand color bit depth,
18 bit = 262,144 colors
24 bit = 16,777,216 colors
Why would Dell do this you ask? Because they can now drop their response time to 6ms from 16ms. That's right, they made a change that severally effects the color quality in order to archive one of the few stats that people use and see to buy a monitor.
There is far more to monitors than ms, contrast, and even color accuracy. There are people in this thread that seem to think that all monitors are created equal but for the case they are put in, or that there is only one component inside the case. To these people of course monitor prices should all be about the same.
Before anyone screams foul on Apple pricing ONE more time I dear you to go to www.NEC.com and check out the different monitors sold by them. You can pay $2000 for a 20" there if you like.
Monitors are just like most computer hardware, not all created equal, not all priced equal. Weigh you needs with your budget, research the product, and make a choice that's right for you. If Apple doesn't offer a choice that fits your equation, that sucks (happened to me), but fortunately there are a hundred other companies out there, one of which might just offer what you require.
Cheers,
~Tyler
Slix
Mar 22, 07:56 PM
I'm glad to see it not leaving. iPod Classic can't go! I mean, that's like, not good. :p
Twizz91
Mar 22, 03:47 PM
Did not say he would improve it either. :(
Adding Bluetooth makes a lot of sense.
that would be nice indeed. it would be nice if i could stream music from my classic through my ipad ^^
Adding Bluetooth makes a lot of sense.
that would be nice indeed. it would be nice if i could stream music from my classic through my ipad ^^
supremedesigner
Jul 19, 05:53 PM
Boooo-Yahhhh!
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Take a look at the numbers!
Kanye West– “Don#39;t Look
teenagers look up to as
The UI may not look radically
treyarch didnt look very
tattoo will look fabulous.
to complete the prom look.
T-shirt: New Look,
look inside the vehicle.
Makes you look at Mondays in a
Why you should look for chrome
layer look lack and white
brunette — looks like
Mitchel Musso Picture
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Dont Hurt Me
Aug 31, 03:05 PM
Knowing that Apple doesn't pay listed prices, it's not unreasonable to assume that Apple could get the Yonah chips for less than Merom ones.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.Ahh crippling like using inferior Gpu's like in ProMac & Mini? Both GMA950 & 7300 are bottom tier.
Also, Apple has historically liked to scale its product lineup to encourage buying then next item up the scale. Some have even referred to it as "crippling" the lower machines.Ahh crippling like using inferior Gpu's like in ProMac & Mini? Both GMA950 & 7300 are bottom tier.
RawBert
Jun 23, 11:04 AM
iOS and Mac OS will merge. Very slowly over the years. Eventually, I see OS X dying out and becoming a comapatibility mode like Classic, as iOS (which is still OS X at heart anyway) becomes the mainstream OS. But this will take a LONG time.
As that happens, I expect Apple desktops will evolve into flat screens that lie on the surface in front of you�maybe slanted a bit, but not vertical (though they could tilt up for passive movie viewing). This sounds great to me! I can imagine Photoshop etc. with a whole new UI, and a future iOS adapted to big screens by allowing multiple apps on-screen at once. (And keyboards will probably be standard�these are production machines used for mass content creation, and with a need for shortcuts. But mice will be optional, since only �old� Mac software will use them.)
These machines will be like pro/prosumer versions of the iPad, used for totally different purposes. Eventually. 5 years? Will they even be called Macs? (I suspect they will be�and fair enough, if they have an OS X compatibility mode.)
In the meantime, I don�t see conventional iMacs with touchscreens. Touch on a vertical surface is a harmless gimmick at best (ask HP). And they give you Popeye Arm Syndrome!
That leaked desktop touchpad, though, sounds great�I hope it ships!
I think this might be exactly where desktops are going. They will actually be desktops. :cool:
As that happens, I expect Apple desktops will evolve into flat screens that lie on the surface in front of you�maybe slanted a bit, but not vertical (though they could tilt up for passive movie viewing). This sounds great to me! I can imagine Photoshop etc. with a whole new UI, and a future iOS adapted to big screens by allowing multiple apps on-screen at once. (And keyboards will probably be standard�these are production machines used for mass content creation, and with a need for shortcuts. But mice will be optional, since only �old� Mac software will use them.)
These machines will be like pro/prosumer versions of the iPad, used for totally different purposes. Eventually. 5 years? Will they even be called Macs? (I suspect they will be�and fair enough, if they have an OS X compatibility mode.)
In the meantime, I don�t see conventional iMacs with touchscreens. Touch on a vertical surface is a harmless gimmick at best (ask HP). And they give you Popeye Arm Syndrome!
That leaked desktop touchpad, though, sounds great�I hope it ships!
I think this might be exactly where desktops are going. They will actually be desktops. :cool:
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. ;)
Popeye206
Sep 14, 12:02 PM
Isn't the iPhone 4 still their top rated phone overall? Seems silly that they won't recommend their top rated smart phone? Makes you wonder why?
BTW... I got my iPhone4 the first day out. Love it.. love it more that iOS4.1 is out and the proximity sensor issue is a non-issue now. That was the source of all my issues.
BTW... I got my iPhone4 the first day out. Love it.. love it more that iOS4.1 is out and the proximity sensor issue is a non-issue now. That was the source of all my issues.
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.
PlipPlop
Mar 25, 09:02 AM
Just realised I was being stupid yesterday.
I forgot about the Mac Pro's
when it said ATI 6970 I thought, Yay, finally an iMac that normal people will buy will be fitted into an iMac and make it a worthy competitor to a good spec PC.
Then it dawned on me, I'm stupid and probably none of the upper end models will find their way into iMac's will they? :(
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
I forgot about the Mac Pro's
when it said ATI 6970 I thought, Yay, finally an iMac that normal people will buy will be fitted into an iMac and make it a worthy competitor to a good spec PC.
Then it dawned on me, I'm stupid and probably none of the upper end models will find their way into iMac's will they? :(
Its unlikely they will fit in an imac case. They are about 30cm long and are all dual slot.
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 06:28 PM
^ I don't about you, guys, but is there a way to make the address bar auto-hide when in FS mode? Logically, you don't wanna see anything but page content when in FS mode, no?
Not that I'm aware of currently, but you know that will be an extension as soon as it is released.
Not that I'm aware of currently, but you know that will be an extension as soon as it is released.
blondepianist
Mar 22, 08:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Because USB is much slower than a hard drive. It's why the iPod originally shipped with FireWire.
Because USB is much slower than a hard drive. It's why the iPod originally shipped with FireWire.
BornAgainMac
Sep 6, 09:14 AM
These new Mac Mini's don't seem like a great deal anymore. I think it was done on purpose to get people to upscale to a higher model.
inkswamp
Aug 6, 09:53 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
No offense, my friend, but I'm glad Apple isn't taking any marketing cues from readers of MacRumors. ;)
No offense, my friend, but I'm glad Apple isn't taking any marketing cues from readers of MacRumors. ;)
Rodimus Prime
Mar 19, 12:56 PM
Actually, the US is supplying EWar and Communications as well. The AWACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control) planes themselves can be considered like "mother ships" of today and fill command and control functions.
Command craft often make the decisions and lead attack and defense tactics. It's not necessarily the ppl who have the "front line" forces are in the ones who are the major player. "Fighter planes" are just like drones with people in them. They follow orders and do not lead anything. It would be like saying the marines are the leading authority in war. They are not. They are just machine operators who pull the trigger.
yet again it goes back to who has AWACS which yet again is the US. do not have as many AWACS and AWACS are very critically for providing communication and support.
Command craft often make the decisions and lead attack and defense tactics. It's not necessarily the ppl who have the "front line" forces are in the ones who are the major player. "Fighter planes" are just like drones with people in them. They follow orders and do not lead anything. It would be like saying the marines are the leading authority in war. They are not. They are just machine operators who pull the trigger.
yet again it goes back to who has AWACS which yet again is the US. do not have as many AWACS and AWACS are very critically for providing communication and support.
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:42 AM
There will never be NTFS write abilities in Mac OS X for a long time as Microsoft still keeps NTFS writing a propritary technology only licensed for use in Windows XP.
Oh, i wouldnt say that....
Microsoft and Apple did a 5-yr cross license of patents in 1997. Now, that doesnt mean you get access for only 5 years, that means anything that was patented up to 2002 is cross licensed perpetually between the two companies.
If NTFS is patented, it was around well before that date. If its not, then Apple just has to write the code to write NTFS.
Interesting question is; when did the first iPod patents arrive? Does MS have access to anything for Zune that creative & co didnt?
Oh, i wouldnt say that....
Microsoft and Apple did a 5-yr cross license of patents in 1997. Now, that doesnt mean you get access for only 5 years, that means anything that was patented up to 2002 is cross licensed perpetually between the two companies.
If NTFS is patented, it was around well before that date. If its not, then Apple just has to write the code to write NTFS.
Interesting question is; when did the first iPod patents arrive? Does MS have access to anything for Zune that creative & co didnt?
NATO
Aug 16, 10:47 AM
Apple has apparently denied this rumour... unusual for them, but I reckon it's probably something they're working on
The Register - Apple Wireless iPod Denial (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/)
The Register - Apple Wireless iPod Denial (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/16/apple_denies_wireless_ipod_claim/)
catracho
Apr 19, 05:33 PM
Next tuesday pleaseee!
Im leaving the states on wednesday...
Im leaving the states on wednesday...
omegaphil6
Feb 8, 06:57 AM
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Blackedout.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
TheIguana
Jul 18, 02:45 AM
Thing is Steve Jobs is going to pull the usual trick (stupid contracts) and only release this to the American public. Rubbish if you ask me, we live in a world of more than one country. Which is why this sounds like another stupid pipe dream that the rest of the world will never get to enjoy *points at TV shows*.
Iggy :rolleyes:
Iggy :rolleyes:
tortoise
Sep 7, 02:17 AM
Now that iMac is Core 2 Duo, the Academic $899 17" iMac is a mini killer config.
Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...
Except that I want to use my 24" monitor...
joemama
Nov 27, 03:30 PM
The macbook is very competitive for it's size and portablility. Compare it to a similar Vaio or IBM. You'll be surprised.
Sorry, I meant "monitors" - I just made the edit. thanks for the catch.
Sorry, I meant "monitors" - I just made the edit. thanks for the catch.
Otto J
May 4, 01:35 AM
PS: Why is leaving behind a text file so you can easily restore your settings a bad thing?
Could someone please elaborate for the not-yet mac user what exactly we're talking about when bickering over left files and folders? Are we just talking about one folder with files that might be useful if you re-install the program? If so, then I would say that this is a VERY important feature to have, when you have such a simple uninstall feature as dragging to the trash. Sometimes you do things by mistake, and yes, sometimes you don't realize your mistake until 5 seconds after you emptied the bin. Isn't this app-cleaner stuff just about not having the "hassle" of finding that folder and manually deleting it? Like others, I don't see how Windows is better in this regard, in any way. Lots of windows programs leave folders after uninstall, that you need to remove manually. The fact that windows, to my knowledge, _don't have_ an "app zapper" - simply because installs are too varied and complicated for such a program to work - tells me that the Mac way is better. It's not about Windows not needing such a program, it's about Windows being poorly programmed so that such a program wouldn't actually work very well.
I DO want a Windows "app zapper", that makes sure that I can install and uninstall a program, and then return my system to the exact same state as before. (Well, basically, I guess I want a Mac... :rolleyes:)
Could someone please elaborate for the not-yet mac user what exactly we're talking about when bickering over left files and folders? Are we just talking about one folder with files that might be useful if you re-install the program? If so, then I would say that this is a VERY important feature to have, when you have such a simple uninstall feature as dragging to the trash. Sometimes you do things by mistake, and yes, sometimes you don't realize your mistake until 5 seconds after you emptied the bin. Isn't this app-cleaner stuff just about not having the "hassle" of finding that folder and manually deleting it? Like others, I don't see how Windows is better in this regard, in any way. Lots of windows programs leave folders after uninstall, that you need to remove manually. The fact that windows, to my knowledge, _don't have_ an "app zapper" - simply because installs are too varied and complicated for such a program to work - tells me that the Mac way is better. It's not about Windows not needing such a program, it's about Windows being poorly programmed so that such a program wouldn't actually work very well.
I DO want a Windows "app zapper", that makes sure that I can install and uninstall a program, and then return my system to the exact same state as before. (Well, basically, I guess I want a Mac... :rolleyes:)
No comments:
Post a Comment