Cygnus311
Sep 1, 12:38 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
A 23" home theater screen? Umm.......
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
A 23" home theater screen? Umm.......
yac_moda
Jul 20, 02:00 PM
I hope not, since that could put them in jail. All publically traded companies have a blackout period before announcements where no employees are allowed to buy or sell.
That's funny that is not what they told us when I worked for Aldus, although there was one time that we could not trade.
I think the blackout period is only for execs and VPs, most of the time.
Although that could be because we were in San Diego and not Seatle, companies with lots of remote offices would probably be the same.
That's funny that is not what they told us when I worked for Aldus, although there was one time that we could not trade.
I think the blackout period is only for execs and VPs, most of the time.
Although that could be because we were in San Diego and not Seatle, companies with lots of remote offices would probably be the same.
tny
Jul 18, 07:20 AM
This does play into the news published about the industry allowing people to burn movies to DVDs but can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
Here is another issue to think about. With large files being downloaded to your HD and then errasing them you will have to defragment your HD quite often or you will suffer. Is there rumor of improved Disk Utility or other method of handling this?
Zip, Tar, and GZip are all but irrelevant here, as the compression used in MPEG2 and MP4 leave little room for Zip to optimize (I just zipped an 850 MB MP4 video, and picked up 12 MB in the compression).
I have a 2.5 hour movie in EyeTV right now; in MPEG2 format (CD quality), it's 7.5 GB. The MP4 re-coding I did is I think 1.4 GB (that's on another computer). This is 29.97 FPS/640x480 video; your mileage may vary, as both MPEG2 and MP4 compression vary depending upon the nature of the content.
Where I live, Cable gives 6 Mbps down, burstable to 12 Mbps for the first 50 or so MB, a lot higher than T1's 1.5 Mbps down (though of course a T1 also has 1.5 Mbps up, and Cable around here does maybe 512 kbps). Obviously the cable speed is dependent to some extent on the traffic at surrounding homes, though I think they have significantly reduced the pool size for cable (somebody else may know a lot more about this than I do), which would give you a lot closer to that ideal 6 Mbps (assuming that the server can maintain that speed, which few can).
I suspect that you can count on the videos being 320x240, not 640x480. It looks about as good as VHS, and will cost Apple less in infrastructure costs (which they will have to be a lot more careful with than they have been with music).
This is a very bad idea. Given how well sales of DVDs do, I'd think that the movie industry would realize that the ownership model will be very successful for them. It's bad for Apple, too, as they have to have pretty much the same infrastructure for rental that they would have for an ownership model, but smaller margins (unless the movie industry is stupid enough to think we'll rent for $9.99).
Tmelon
Apr 6, 04:35 PM
I'm having major crashing problems with Lion. When editing a video in iMovie and converting it to HD it will crash right before finishing, same with editing an audio clip in Quicktime.
BillyShears
Jan 11, 10:12 PM
The only reason i can see it being called Air is because its all wireless....i.e. it connects to its Docking station wirelessly via Ultrawideband wireless USB (which would also connect the External Optical), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc
I still call BS though.
Would be interesting. You have your "docking station", complete with super drive, hooked up to your external monitor and keyboard/mouse. So you only have to put your MacBook Air in the vicinity of the docking station (say, sit it on the table), and it switches over.
The problems I see are:
the new Catwoman, Anne
The casting news is filtering
Anne Hathaway as Catwoman
Anne Hathaway
Anne Hathaway Is Your New Catwoman. Anne Hathaway is your new Catwoman; Anne Hathaway is your new Catwoman. psychometry. Oct 5, 05:44 PM
new catwoman anne hathaway. a
new catwoman anne hathaway.
new catwoman anne hathaway. Anne Hathaway is replacing; Anne Hathaway is replacing. wordoflife. May 2, 08:57 PM
Catwoman babe Anne Hathaway
Anne Hathaway during an
The New Catwoman
Anne Hathaway to play Catwoman
I still call BS though.
Would be interesting. You have your "docking station", complete with super drive, hooked up to your external monitor and keyboard/mouse. So you only have to put your MacBook Air in the vicinity of the docking station (say, sit it on the table), and it switches over.
The problems I see are:
poppe
Jan 2, 11:36 AM
I have to say I'm not excited for a single rumor yet for the this Macworld. iPhone maybe but who has money after Christmas... I mean I sure don't not for a phone anyways...
iTV. Could careless about it unless there is something better than what is already expected.
Only thing I can hope for is that they have some updates on Leopard like doing a blackish gray theme or something.
iLife... nothing really useful I use in there. How about a Microsoft Killer app so I dont have to mess around with Word (not that it doesn't work fine on here).
iTV. Could careless about it unless there is something better than what is already expected.
Only thing I can hope for is that they have some updates on Leopard like doing a blackish gray theme or something.
iLife... nothing really useful I use in there. How about a Microsoft Killer app so I dont have to mess around with Word (not that it doesn't work fine on here).
SMM
Nov 15, 06:52 PM
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
I work with business applications, many of which are database intensive. I can think of many examples which would greatly improve performance and application reliability, if I could run processes in parallel, rather than in series.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
I work with business applications, many of which are database intensive. I can think of many examples which would greatly improve performance and application reliability, if I could run processes in parallel, rather than in series.
Phishin' it
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
That no longer exists. Go to the mbp page and click the core duo icon, and I get a page not found.
This will probably change by the time anyone verifies it. :rolleyes:
I got the same thing.
fr4c
Nov 23, 01:29 PM
Oh you are making me hungry...
http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bridgestone/bs_blizzak_lm25_ci2_l.jpg
Tires for the winter
http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/bridgestone/bs_blizzak_lm25_ci2_l.jpg
Tires for the winter
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:28 AM
bmustaf
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
I agree with you on the points that Apple does need a reminder of where it stands in the consumer/producer relationship every now and then, just as any other company does. Consumer Reports generally does a good job with facilitating this. I'd much rather a major publication start taking Apple to task about not allowing sideloading/locking down the device though to be honest.
My issue, from a personal viewpoint as an iPhone and Android user, is the way the iPhone4 antenna issue was approached and in my opinion blown out of proportion in terms of the net effect.
Yes the phone suffers a -20dB attenuation when you hold the device and bridge that antenna. My HTC Desire gave me a -14dB attenuation when I held it in one hand and my Galaxy S gives me -18dB when holding it in one hand. The only difference is that the attenuation on the iPhone4 is possible by simply bridging that antenna with your pinky finger rather than needing to hold the device.
The point there is that how often does someone do that where they lay a device on a table and touch that particular spot with a pinky finger? Or why would someone do that? The issue is that the signal attenuates when the device is held. But every phone suffers that to some degree, with even phones that have internal antennas giving comparable attenuation when held in your hand.
They focused quite a bit on "if I touch the device just like this when it's laying down it gives me the attenuation" despite the fact no one does that. They should have looked at it from a net user experience, where "does a -20dB attenuation make a phone not recommendable compared to a phone with only a -15dB attenuation" being the more deciding factor.
To me personally, I can't see how someone can recommend a phone that gives you -15 to -18dB attenuation when held and then not recommend a phone that gives you -20dB simply because it can also be reproduced by touching a marked spot with your pinky if the device is laying on a table. That's not to say that Apple should be proud that their phone also attenuates (and usually more so by varying degrees), but where's the cutoff?
Is -19dB the maximum allowable attenuation before you say something isn't recommendable? I think that's a fair question to ask.
gusapple
Apr 12, 09:08 PM
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
I find that things just go smoother in FCP. Applications don't crash as easily as they do in Express, and when they do, it's easier to recover them. Also, I find myself having much more power to control rendering and export settings than in FCE. I guess once you go pro, it's hard to go back. Just make the jump though. If you are thinking of editing as a profession or even as a large hobby, Final Cut Pro is a wonderful and integrated way to start.
I find that things just go smoother in FCP. Applications don't crash as easily as they do in Express, and when they do, it's easier to recover them. Also, I find myself having much more power to control rendering and export settings than in FCE. I guess once you go pro, it's hard to go back. Just make the jump though. If you are thinking of editing as a profession or even as a large hobby, Final Cut Pro is a wonderful and integrated way to start.
iAlan
Jul 14, 01:37 AM
Bluray (or Blu-ray - not sure how to write it yet) will win because it sounds way cooler to say 'Bluray' than 'HD-DVD' :p
And we all know how important a name can be - can you say 'MacBook'? :p :p
And we all know how important a name can be - can you say 'MacBook'? :p :p
mrapplegate
Apr 6, 08:14 AM
Ok I'm using a Late 2008 MBP model, 2.4 ghz IC2D , 4gig ram. But Launchpad is lagging for me big time, when I try to scroll thru my apps for instance. and when i switch windows its not always flowing. Now I know LION still has a few miles to go before it works perfectly, however I wanna know if its the same for other developers with later MBP's or does it flow perfectly?
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
Unspeaked
Sep 1, 01:56 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro, unless this iMac comes out to be north of $2500, at which point nobody will buy this.
Yeah, wouldn't that be terrible if Apple lost sales to - Apple!!!
Come on, people who need a Mac Pro are going to buy a Mac Pro.
People who need an iMac will buy an iMac.
The small overlap between these users isn't enough to justify or kill off a product. It's still going to be a duo (not quad), lack PCI, lack the number of RAM slots, etc, etc.
They're different markets.
Yeah, wouldn't that be terrible if Apple lost sales to - Apple!!!
Come on, people who need a Mac Pro are going to buy a Mac Pro.
People who need an iMac will buy an iMac.
The small overlap between these users isn't enough to justify or kill off a product. It's still going to be a duo (not quad), lack PCI, lack the number of RAM slots, etc, etc.
They're different markets.
angelwatt
Jul 13, 10:28 PM
Well I hope it doesn't come too soon. Blu-ray is just too expensive right now and it would jack up Mac cost significantly. It's also better to see how the Blu-ray vs HD DVD thing works out as well just to make sure Apple doesn't back a dead horse.
e-coli
Jun 22, 12:22 PM
No chance. The ergonomics would be a disaster.
zeppiecr
Sep 6, 07:39 AM
Pricing Now Starts at Just $999; New 24-inch Model Added
new catwoman are being
Catwoman Anne Hathaway.
ezekielrage_99
Oct 23, 09:58 AM
So Macbooks next tuesday :confused:
KindredMAC
Nov 27, 08:12 PM
If you don't need color accuracy, DO NOT BUY AN APPLE MONITOR, there are cheaper monitors that, though less accurate, will satisfy you just fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Galaxas0
Apr 2, 11:35 PM
Actually, I'm talking about JUST the content within the window, and only Safari Fullscreen Mode can do it. I'll post a pic...
salvatorereda
Jan 13, 12:50 PM
"Macbook Air" was just reregistered on 01.11.08 as a .com
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
If this was the true name, Apple would of purchased the name long before Macworld.
End of Story.
Trauma1
Apr 21, 04:42 PM
Yes, a 30 second observation of people surfing FB on their Macbook (pros) is sufficient for me to assume that they are not performing complex video rendering or multi-filter Photoshop layering.
Laptops are not Pro machines. A 13" laptop with shared memory and a glossy screen is not professional. Unless your profession is being a writer. The "pro" moniker is a marketing ploy.
I realize the 15" and 17" are more powerful, but you still can't edit 4K RED footage on one, for example. But a Mac Pro? There's nothing professional you can throw at it that it can't do.
If you walked by someone using a high-end machine and they happened to be underutilizing their resources for a few seconds, would you also say the same thing?
I agree 100% that it's a marketing tactic. And you never specified size, that does make a difference. But I'm sure you you can find many people, both here and in the real world, that use 15" and 17" for heavy-duty, professional use in the field and can attest to it. There have been plenty of instances where I have seen them put to use. Perhaps your standards are higher. Yes, there is a tradeoff in resources between a laptop and a desktop. But don't knock a fully-blown 17" MacBook Pro because someone is casually using it in a public place.
Also, regarding the car metaphor: put your 400hp car up against a NASCAR or Formula 1 vehicle and see how well it does on the racetrack against other REAL professional cars.
The car is nice, I'm sure, but is not a vehicle doing professional high performance driving. The same is true of macbook pros. They're solid machines, but they are not professional performance machines.
The NASCAR and F1 cars are not consumer, road-driven vehicles. This is like comparing a Mac Pro to the giant supercomputers that run NASA. Keep in mind, there are varying degrees of professionality (I may have made that word up).
Laptops are not Pro machines. A 13" laptop with shared memory and a glossy screen is not professional. Unless your profession is being a writer. The "pro" moniker is a marketing ploy.
I realize the 15" and 17" are more powerful, but you still can't edit 4K RED footage on one, for example. But a Mac Pro? There's nothing professional you can throw at it that it can't do.
If you walked by someone using a high-end machine and they happened to be underutilizing their resources for a few seconds, would you also say the same thing?
I agree 100% that it's a marketing tactic. And you never specified size, that does make a difference. But I'm sure you you can find many people, both here and in the real world, that use 15" and 17" for heavy-duty, professional use in the field and can attest to it. There have been plenty of instances where I have seen them put to use. Perhaps your standards are higher. Yes, there is a tradeoff in resources between a laptop and a desktop. But don't knock a fully-blown 17" MacBook Pro because someone is casually using it in a public place.
Also, regarding the car metaphor: put your 400hp car up against a NASCAR or Formula 1 vehicle and see how well it does on the racetrack against other REAL professional cars.
The car is nice, I'm sure, but is not a vehicle doing professional high performance driving. The same is true of macbook pros. They're solid machines, but they are not professional performance machines.
The NASCAR and F1 cars are not consumer, road-driven vehicles. This is like comparing a Mac Pro to the giant supercomputers that run NASA. Keep in mind, there are varying degrees of professionality (I may have made that word up).
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 03:24 PM
I mean absolutely no disrespect in any of my arguments...Same hear. I just find it interesting that you seem to be ignoring the fact that 1 year ago you were willing to pay an approximately $100 markup for SWOP certification, yet you find it completely reasonable for Apple to essentially be charging $300 for it today? I'm about the biggest fan of Apple of anyone but their prices are out of touch on their 20" displays.
iEvolution
Mar 23, 02:29 PM
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.
Tony
Yeah man, because it would be just so much effort to swap the 160GB for the 220GB..it would just cost WAYY too much money and too much time.
What a ignorant post.:rolleyes:
The COST is the issue with beyond 64GB flash at this point.
Tony
Yeah man, because it would be just so much effort to swap the 160GB for the 220GB..it would just cost WAYY too much money and too much time.
What a ignorant post.:rolleyes:
The COST is the issue with beyond 64GB flash at this point.
