Rafterman
Apr 22, 06:49 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
Agreed. Apple doesn't need deals with record labels, they need deals with wireless carriers.
Agreed. Apple doesn't need deals with record labels, they need deals with wireless carriers.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
thefourthpope
Mar 23, 05:23 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)
Let me see... wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... high unemployment in the USA. Cost of energy is killing the average guy in the pocketbook. I know... lets spend our time getting those terrible DUI apps out of the app store... that way we can tell our Constituents what a great job we are doing representing them in Washington.
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
Just writing a letter. Not a whole lot of time involved there, I'd think. Presumably a Senator can author something like this during the same week that they tackle more "legitimate" issues.
Let me see... wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... high unemployment in the USA. Cost of energy is killing the average guy in the pocketbook. I know... lets spend our time getting those terrible DUI apps out of the app store... that way we can tell our Constituents what a great job we are doing representing them in Washington.
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
Just writing a letter. Not a whole lot of time involved there, I'd think. Presumably a Senator can author something like this during the same week that they tackle more "legitimate" issues.
mmcc
Apr 22, 08:47 AM
when ur at ur home you'd be connected to wifi so usage wouldn't be a problem. i don't know why anyone pays for the $15/month plan that's a complete ripoff to begin with.
My wife and I both opted for the 200MB plan because our usage over the previous year never exceeded that amount (and often never got close) even while on vacation and using Maps. Therefore paying twice that, or more, for unlimited usage is/was a waste of $. For two iPhones that saved $360/yr which is substantial for us.
If the Apple service works like DropBox to sync all my music on all my iTunes/iPod devices AND is only active over WiFi, then I will probably make use of the service since it would essentially be the wireless syncing for which many have been asking.
As an on-the-go music stream over cell service it is useless to me.
My wife and I both opted for the 200MB plan because our usage over the previous year never exceeded that amount (and often never got close) even while on vacation and using Maps. Therefore paying twice that, or more, for unlimited usage is/was a waste of $. For two iPhones that saved $360/yr which is substantial for us.
If the Apple service works like DropBox to sync all my music on all my iTunes/iPod devices AND is only active over WiFi, then I will probably make use of the service since it would essentially be the wireless syncing for which many have been asking.
As an on-the-go music stream over cell service it is useless to me.
ready2switch
Aug 28, 04:06 PM
ah yes. just like they did with the eMac back in the day. that was popular... you know, not having a product to ship for weeks.
Isn't that how they introduced the MBP in January? Announced at MWSF and then not shipped until sometime in February? (I think the iMacs shipped right away, which could be a good "hint" that they could get conroe....if you like that sort of a parallel.)
Isn't that how they introduced the MBP in January? Announced at MWSF and then not shipped until sometime in February? (I think the iMacs shipped right away, which could be a good "hint" that they could get conroe....if you like that sort of a parallel.)
Spanky Deluxe
Sep 5, 12:05 PM
This sure does look interesting. I doubt an Airport replacement will be released just yet, not until the draft gets approved. Although it could explain the delayed Airport Express chips for the Mac Pros. An iTunes Movie service has been a definite since the big data centre was built a few months ago imo.
holmesf
Mar 29, 03:29 PM
The iPhone has gone from 0% market share in 2007 to 17.25% in 2010. Based on my projections they will reach 100% market share by 2024. That about sums up how ridiculous this article is.
Thees predictions are looking 4 years ahead. 4 years ago the iPhone was not even shipping yet! I dare anyone to accurately predict the tech world 4 years in advance. The history of technology seems to be more than anything else dominated by failed predictions. Remember a few years ago when Microsoft predicted that a typical computer running Windows Vista would operate at 6GHz? They failed to even see one year ahead of time when Intel and others would hit the power wall.
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/longhorn_to_steal_limelight_at_winhec.html
Thees predictions are looking 4 years ahead. 4 years ago the iPhone was not even shipping yet! I dare anyone to accurately predict the tech world 4 years in advance. The history of technology seems to be more than anything else dominated by failed predictions. Remember a few years ago when Microsoft predicted that a typical computer running Windows Vista would operate at 6GHz? They failed to even see one year ahead of time when Intel and others would hit the power wall.
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/longhorn_to_steal_limelight_at_winhec.html
Kilamite
Apr 11, 06:26 AM
Because the 3rd party device could be in your neighbours house so your neighbour can see or hear anything that is played through AirPlay from your devices without you knowing. And you might be playing stuff that you wouldn't want your neighbour to see.
Wouldn't that require your neighbour to be on your WiFi network?
Wouldn't that require your neighbour to be on your WiFi network?
1984
Sep 14, 04:53 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.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
cult hero
Apr 25, 04:42 PM
I bought a first gen unibody MacBook Pro and really liked it. However, in 2010 I sold it to replace it with the 13" MBP. For what I do that really is the perfect size. I've been toying with the idea of going to an MBA, but... no. The RAM is the biggest issue.
With that said, the resolution on the 13" MBA makes me jealous and I would have considered trading up if the latest generation had a resolution bump on the 13" models.
I'm quite curious about this upcoming generation of MacBook Pros though. Particularly if/what Apple will do to differentiate the 13" model as a "Pro" laptop. It would be really, really nice to see the optical drive go away and with that extra space increase the battery and/or bring back dedicated video to the 13" models.
Don't get me wrong, I love my little MBP. For work related purposes it does everything I need. However, it'd be nice to be able to play a few of the Steam games I have on it rather than my PC. Left 4 Dead 2 in particular, just because it'd be fun to take the machine over to a friend's place.
With that said, the resolution on the 13" MBA makes me jealous and I would have considered trading up if the latest generation had a resolution bump on the 13" models.
I'm quite curious about this upcoming generation of MacBook Pros though. Particularly if/what Apple will do to differentiate the 13" model as a "Pro" laptop. It would be really, really nice to see the optical drive go away and with that extra space increase the battery and/or bring back dedicated video to the 13" models.
Don't get me wrong, I love my little MBP. For work related purposes it does everything I need. However, it'd be nice to be able to play a few of the Steam games I have on it rather than my PC. Left 4 Dead 2 in particular, just because it'd be fun to take the machine over to a friend's place.
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 02:43 PM
I've waited a year and a half or more for a larger iPod. My mac has almost 70GB of music and I hate manually changing out songs. I never went to the video 5G since the only difference was video with no larger drive... music only for me. If I was to upload album art for all of my imported music 17 thousand plus songs does that take up alot of storage room? Anyone know how much art adds to storage??:p
no, album arts don't take up that much of a space
and believe me, you won't be able to put artworks on EVERY SINGLE one of your song file.... you can't, technically.
and as for the video... well i thought the same way as you did, but now that i got the video one(my old one was photo) it just totally blowed my mind... video thing is just too a great stride for me to deal with
i'm a music lover myself and that was the only reason that prompted me to buy an ipod but now it seems that peripheral things appease more than anything these dyas
no, album arts don't take up that much of a space
and believe me, you won't be able to put artworks on EVERY SINGLE one of your song file.... you can't, technically.
and as for the video... well i thought the same way as you did, but now that i got the video one(my old one was photo) it just totally blowed my mind... video thing is just too a great stride for me to deal with
i'm a music lover myself and that was the only reason that prompted me to buy an ipod but now it seems that peripheral things appease more than anything these dyas
MacBoobsPro
Sep 19, 03:13 PM
Didn't Steve say in his keynote how long it would be until Europe got movies? I could have sworn it was October.
I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007. :rolleyes:
I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007. :rolleyes:
bankshot
Sep 12, 03:07 PM
Gapless was the #1 request?? Holy cow! :eek: Then what took them so friggin long?
I've been under the impression that gapless was only desired by 0.000001% of the users, and therefore Apple didn't give a damn about it. I assumed that the other 99.999999% of users only listen to shuffle mode and don't care about traditional albums. Seems pretty reasonable based on what's popular these days. But the #1 request? Surely this should have been fixed in the 2nd generation iPod then, 3rd generation at the latest.
I'm not complaining, this just really, really surprises me. I'm so happy to see that it's fixed, finally, so I can go out and buy a replacement iPod soon, after holding out for over a year. Better days are here to stay. ;)
I've been under the impression that gapless was only desired by 0.000001% of the users, and therefore Apple didn't give a damn about it. I assumed that the other 99.999999% of users only listen to shuffle mode and don't care about traditional albums. Seems pretty reasonable based on what's popular these days. But the #1 request? Surely this should have been fixed in the 2nd generation iPod then, 3rd generation at the latest.
I'm not complaining, this just really, really surprises me. I'm so happy to see that it's fixed, finally, so I can go out and buy a replacement iPod soon, after holding out for over a year. Better days are here to stay. ;)
.jpg "But then look at the cover!")
bbotte
Apr 20, 10:35 AM
It says I have been in Vegas, I haven't been to vegas since the early 90's. Fail
Dmac77
Apr 25, 02:39 AM
And yet, you sounded almost human when you posted about your grandparents and their cancer. Now we know otherwise.
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc. Some random idiot woman in a minivan is just another person, why should I care about her? Because she is a human? I think not. I have no personal connection to that woman, I cannot feasibly or easily use her to advance myself, so why should I care what happens to her today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now? Logically, I shouldn't; emotionally and morally I should because she is another person, I think that is nonsensical.
-Don
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc. Some random idiot woman in a minivan is just another person, why should I care about her? Because she is a human? I think not. I have no personal connection to that woman, I cannot feasibly or easily use her to advance myself, so why should I care what happens to her today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now? Logically, I shouldn't; emotionally and morally I should because she is another person, I think that is nonsensical.
-Don
Anonymous Freak
Sep 29, 10:05 PM
Sorry if the question has been answered before, but here goes:
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
JobsRules
Oct 27, 09:31 AM
If, say, Steinberg didn't like the fact that girls were hanbding out Protools leaflets in the aisles near their stand do you think Protools would have been kicked out?
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
asdf542
Apr 22, 11:58 AM
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
Err... and how is that relevant? I'm sure Blu-Ray will live on in other notebooks, but Apple's? Unlikely.
There were 100GB BDXL when Apple refreshed the MacBook Pro's this year.
Err... and how is that relevant? I'm sure Blu-Ray will live on in other notebooks, but Apple's? Unlikely.
There were 100GB BDXL when Apple refreshed the MacBook Pro's this year.
SPUY767
Aug 23, 09:44 PM
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
RollTide
May 3, 05:14 PM
I can't believe 7200 rpm HD is standard. WOW
doctor-don
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Only way MS would get these numbers is if Windows Phone takes over the business cellular market.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
The only way that would happen would be for the phone to be GIVEN away at a price so LOW that nobody would refuse it. And it would have to include a data plan that costs practically nothing. And it would have to be contract free.
Oh, look! There is an ad below this for HTC Aria™ for just 1� - Free shipping - AT&T.
uv23
Sep 4, 07:28 PM
I predict a more powerful, larger storage, video iPod with a dock that has component/hdmi/whatever video and optical audio outs. No big deal. It's a natural progression from what's available today.
centauratlas
Mar 29, 11:51 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't. Same with window snap.
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't. Same with window snap.
I love OS X, but, like with a lot of Apple products, its the "little things" that matter...
Both are great operating systems, and I will continue to use both since I cannot run Visual Studio on Mac, or XCode on Windows... :)
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:45 AM
He means CUT and paste hence the caps. Not copy. i.e. The text you select is both deleted and copied to the clipboard. I use it a lot myself in Windows and do miss it in OSX. Also allows you to easily move files around by CUT and pasting them :D
Exactly. You should be able to CUT a file and move it. I bought an app in the Mac App Store that does just that...
Should be built in.
That other thing that sucks in the folder view. I want folders first in A to Z, then files A to Z like in Windows... Not a default option....
Exactly. You should be able to CUT a file and move it. I bought an app in the Mac App Store that does just that...
Should be built in.
That other thing that sucks in the folder view. I want folders first in A to Z, then files A to Z like in Windows... Not a default option....
No comments:
Post a Comment