Cosmo M3
Nov 27, 07:40 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
Fallout: New Vegas - $35
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit - $30
Need For Speed: Shift - $10
Plants vs Zombies - $15
Pac Man: CE-DX - $10
'Splosion Man - $2 :eek:
http://imgur.com/S5am1.jpg http://imgur.com/SPJU3.jpg http://imgur.com/FTmDy.jpg
http://imgur.com/67VbI.jpg http://imgur.com/9eJ7v.jpg http://imgur.com/i7KPZ.jpg
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Fallout: New Vegas - $35
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit - $30
Need For Speed: Shift - $10
Plants vs Zombies - $15
Pac Man: CE-DX - $10
'Splosion Man - $2 :eek:
http://imgur.com/S5am1.jpg http://imgur.com/SPJU3.jpg http://imgur.com/FTmDy.jpg
http://imgur.com/67VbI.jpg http://imgur.com/9eJ7v.jpg http://imgur.com/i7KPZ.jpg
SHIFT was a terrible game.
Nugget
Jan 1, 05:20 PM
Sounds like the keynote will either be really boring or really surprising.
dguisinger
Aug 7, 07:55 AM
You ordered a Macbook pro on the eve of WWDC. ARe you mad?
Don't taunt him too much, he might kill you once he finds out they are now 64-bit and higher speed!
Don't taunt him too much, he might kill you once he finds out they are now 64-bit and higher speed!
mi5moav
Oct 23, 06:31 PM
Along with the macbook and MB pro getting updates, for $14.95 you can download an ipod nano or ipod patch/software that lets you listen to FM radio without having to purchase the radio remote. Interface is the same as with the remote.
MacMan86
Apr 21, 11:23 AM
Once sent to Apple, it should be removed from the phone though, which is not happening right now according to reports. This is wrong. The problem isn't the feature per say, it's the persistence of this database and it's very accurate, low-resolution.
Reports are the file isn't sent to Apple, it doesn't leave the iPhone/iTunes backup. It exists to cache the location of nearby cell towers to provide a rough location in an area with no GPS or data connection. If it wasn't persistent, it would be pointless
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
Reports are the file isn't sent to Apple, it doesn't leave the iPhone/iTunes backup. It exists to cache the location of nearby cell towers to provide a rough location in an area with no GPS or data connection. If it wasn't persistent, it would be pointless
This explains it very well: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12432603&postcount=16
gugy
Nov 27, 01:49 PM
20" is the new 17", duh. :cool:
yeah, I agree.
17 is so small.
well if it costs $300, why not?
yeah, I agree.
17 is so small.
well if it costs $300, why not?
macidiot
Jul 19, 04:04 PM
does it mean mac's desktop market share is climbing? 5%?
It would appear so. Apple's computer sales rose faster than the overall market. But, most of those sales were laptops... so the desktop marketshare is probably falling ;)
It would appear so. Apple's computer sales rose faster than the overall market. But, most of those sales were laptops... so the desktop marketshare is probably falling ;)
dalvin200
Oct 23, 08:45 AM
well i hope it happens this week. but i'll believe it when i see it
i saw it in my dream.. does that count? ;)
i saw it in my dream.. does that count? ;)
Small White Car
Apr 12, 08:55 PM
I remember the keynote... He was on vacation and wanted a super easy way to edit his home movie. So he whipped up this "new" program to do it. Steve liked it and it became iMovie. And in the process threw 50 years of video editing out the window. Great if you've never edited before, but if you want to edit, iMovie isn't an option. If you want to slap together a super quick video, it's almost faster to cut and paste clips in a QT7 window then use iMovie now.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.
I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
Speaking of that. I really hope they fix QTX today also, at least bring it up to par with QT7 in features.
I thought the new iMovie was genius. I knew SO many family members who wouldn't touch the old iMovie because it was too complicated. They needed something simpler and the new iMovie gave it to them.
I really think the only people who complained about the new iMovie were people who should have been using Final Cut Express all along anyway. It's not Apple's fault that they weren't using the right program before.
jdl8422
Aug 24, 07:53 PM
why is the guy who first posted this rumor buying a bunch of mac minis for a server?
lordonuthin
Dec 18, 05:43 PM
i may add some more over the break
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
Cool, you are getting away from me again... but that's a good thing! :p
Gem�tlichkeit
Nov 24, 10:12 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
Porchland
Sep 8, 03:51 PM
This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
If 88 percent (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2006135) of households have cable or satellite -- and a big chunk of those have access to PPV or on-demand new releases -- I don't understand why an iTunes movie-to-your-TV service is such a big hoopty-do.
Unless Apple goes to a subscription-based service that essentially replaces my cable, this doesn't really give me anything I don't already have other than the ability to watch a movie on an iPod.
I'm excited, I guess, because it's new and a different direction for Apple, but none of the rumors I've seen about what's coming next week show much "think different."
jonharris200
Jan 1, 07:18 PM
Whoa... apple.com homepage. :eek:
RITZFit
Apr 16, 06:44 PM
I can drive a 18 wheeler but I haven't tried a manual car or pickup yet. I think its different. LOL
haha, if you can master than then I'm sure any other car will be simple
haha, if you can master than then I'm sure any other car will be simple
archer75
Apr 19, 11:33 AM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
Larger screen and still more powerful. I don't like working on notebooks. Trackpads slow me down. And the only place I use a notebook is in my house so I don't really need the portability. Desktops, depending on what we're talking about, are more upgradeable, more cutting edge.
For serious work and gaming I still go to my desktop.
If I had a macbook i'd have to connect a keyboard and mouse, monitor, desktop speakers, USB hub, etc. and then put up with a weak mobile video card. What's the point? I just don't need the portability.
If I did i'd still have a powerful desktop and then just get a weaker macbook.
lazyrighteye
Sep 1, 01:56 PM
i wonder if it will lose its chin?! ^^^^^^ yes...precisely
If so, a 23" chinless iMac might find it's way to my family.
If so, a 23" chinless iMac might find it's way to my family.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
And all of that doesn't matter. Apple refers to software as Applications because that's what the whole industry does. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Sun, HP, the industry has always used Application to refer to software (Program has also been used). App has always been the shortened form of Application, heck in the 80s, Visicalc was referred to as the "Killer app" for Apple computers.
Your ranting as no relevance to the case at hand. Apple has no more claim to the term than anyone else and App or Application is not the trademark being discussed here.
ecoons
Jan 12, 01:20 PM
I don't know if anyone has said this one yet, but... Lets say you are using a Mac Mini for your media center, well the FrontRow remote is very limited in terms of what it can DO and if you take a look at how FrontRow plays DVDs vs the Leopard DVD Player, you will see that the player is a MUCH better interface.......when using a mouse. But sitting at the couch with a mouse is pretty impractical. So how could they have a mouse when you are at your couch?
Think Wii. What if they managed to have a similarly small remote with the same 5 functions but you could use it to point at the screen as if using a mouse. THEN I could also see surfing the web on your HDTV with your wireless keyboard and new remote to be much more of a breeze (pun intended). Maybe a new AppleTV is in the air?
Think Wii. What if they managed to have a similarly small remote with the same 5 functions but you could use it to point at the screen as if using a mouse. THEN I could also see surfing the web on your HDTV with your wireless keyboard and new remote to be much more of a breeze (pun intended). Maybe a new AppleTV is in the air?
Fwink!
Mar 22, 04:36 PM
The suggestion that they will kill a product that has a great niche is kinda silly. My classic still gets plenty of use. A music player doesn't need a touchscreen. though I could see them doing that, changing the form factor a bit. One of the things that kept me from buying a touch when they came out was the limited storage capacity. What I see them doing is thinning the classic down, keeping the scroll wheel, using flash storage and adding airplay functionality. Big hds on portable players are nice but at some level you have to admit, there are very few people who legitimately "own" that much music. And Apple who should remain neural and just make the devices does like to act as ethical gatekeeper. As things shift to cloud storage, first will come non linear access to media, and then slowly but surely accountability and a polite but insistent offer to purchase the rights to all that music you seem to have that you don't have a receipt for from Apple.
mark it.
mark it.
Doraemon
Apr 2, 07:24 AM
Itms doesn't make any money for Apple, [...]
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
What are you talking about? iTMS not generating profit? Geez, check your facts!
So why not go for the lower end of the market - eg: like they did with the old "LC"s machines. People buy software but they don't want to shell out alot of money for hardware.
Yeah, right. A $2500 "low-cost" computer. :rolleyes:
Again, check the facts.
jxyama
Mar 19, 04:44 PM
well for just once I would like the fastest single cpu in one of the consumer models and give it a good video card. thats all not asking for the world.
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
codymac
Apr 20, 01:42 PM
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
Or has never driven a Lotus.
;)
But I'd guess that statement would come from someone who's only ever had rubbish cars or lives in a city where public transit is the more convenient option. Case in point:
No, my first car had a manual transmission (on the column). It was even worse, but that's mostly because the car was a 1965 model and had no air conditioning, no power steering, no power brakes, no power windows, torn-up seats, and oddly chewed through right rear tail light bulbs at a blistering pace. That was back in the days when driving was less of a headache than it is today (I was much younger), but even then I would still rather ride shotgun.
Or has never driven a Lotus.
;)
But I'd guess that statement would come from someone who's only ever had rubbish cars or lives in a city where public transit is the more convenient option. Case in point:
No, my first car had a manual transmission (on the column). It was even worse, but that's mostly because the car was a 1965 model and had no air conditioning, no power steering, no power brakes, no power windows, torn-up seats, and oddly chewed through right rear tail light bulbs at a blistering pace. That was back in the days when driving was less of a headache than it is today (I was much younger), but even then I would still rather ride shotgun.
0 comments:
Post a Comment