MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:27 PM
I'm with you on that. I'm pretty sure Front Row is gone for good. Instead, look for iTunes full screen mode. Alternatively, I could see Lion gaining the ability to run iOS apps in some fashion, with the AppleTV interface being one option.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
I hope it's not killed. It's a neglected feature with so much potential, and it would be nice to see Apple do something with it. I was hoping they'd port the Apple TV interface into it. Plex and the other similar things just aren't quite right and lack the simplicity of front row. And iTunes is already a bloated slow piece of crap that needs a full re-write and a healthy diet. I get that it's the gateway app for Apple into Windows for their echo system, but the Windows version is worse than the Mac version. There has to be a way to clean it's gutters, but don't put anything more in there.
DaveP
Aug 6, 05:34 PM
I find it amusing how optimistic Mac users are. Every once in a while Apple has an event where they really wow with product releases, but seems like 9 out of 10 people are predicting amazing releases. By the way, I'm not criticizing in any way, and being optimistic is good.
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
I'm predicting Steve will annouce his retirement :eek: :p
Probably about as likely as some of the wish lists we've seen, haha.
Metatron
Nov 28, 11:38 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
econgeek
Apr 12, 08:40 PM
Migrated to the new thread.
ehoui
Apr 27, 05:35 PM
It's just like kings, innit?
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
Probably has more to do with trying to avoid the label "Junior" than pretending to be a king.
In any event, I think Obama shouldn't have release anything. There was no need.
chubad
Aug 11, 07:37 PM
If Apple makes a phone, I will order one on the spot. If the interface is as well thought out and simple as the iPod, then it will be a smash hit.:D
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
wizard
Mar 26, 10:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
It is pretty incredible that the ignorance around Mac OS releases never stops. For one thing if you loose data on a computer, the only person to blame is the one staring at you in the mirror.
Even the whine about nothing worthwhile for the user is a bit old and reflects what we heard about SL. Yet SL on my early 2008 MBP was a drastic improvement for the user right out of the box and just got better with each update. User facing features are the only reason to update, fixes to underlying facilities can go a long way to justifying the software update.
As to the server integration, it hasn't and never will be a product worth $500. It is great that Apple is adding support to the base install but people need to realize a few things. One is that Mac OS is UNIX, people need to get that through their heads. Thus Apples server product only really adds in what is already seen in many UNIX intallations in a base install. Speaking of which much of that functionality is well established open source. Second the pricing of "server" software seems to be tailored to fit the mentality of the corporate world, where they feel they need to pay big bucks for something trivial. It is no wonder that Linux as established itself as a server OS in the SOHO world and at some of the more forward thinking larger corporations. As others have pointed out the basics of UNIX have been around for ages now, very little new territory is being cleared here, thus little justification for up charges on server software.
Finally it is a bit cowardly to avoid the future because you see nothing of value there for you personally. It is frightenly similar to the attitude seen in those that cut their own wrists.
Macaddicttt
Apr 28, 04:02 PM
...with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him.
Whoa, seriously? Providing both a birth certificate and a local paper announcement of the birth back three years ago is "hazy"?
Whoa, seriously? Providing both a birth certificate and a local paper announcement of the birth back three years ago is "hazy"?
boncellis
Aug 11, 01:43 PM
There's something fishy about this "story." The premise just seems unlikely.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
DeathChill
Mar 31, 09:52 PM
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
Good. I declare it dog moustache day.
zioxide
Apr 27, 09:54 AM
Trump is a fat old bald piece of **** and should stick to his Miss America pageants.
The racism still in this country is astounding, these people should at least stop being pussies and at least just admit they are racist.
It baffles me that someone who has a US Passport, security clearance, was a Senator and is now the President, would somehow avoid all background investigations by various departments in the US Government. He must have a lot of connections.
It baffles me that someone would actually think the US government would allow someone to run for senator or president without checking their background. That is STEP ONE of the process of becoming a candidate. Anyone who believes that the "government didn't check" or that "Obama isn't a natural citizen" is just full of **** and probably a closet racist at this point.
The racism still in this country is astounding, these people should at least stop being pussies and at least just admit they are racist.
It baffles me that someone who has a US Passport, security clearance, was a Senator and is now the President, would somehow avoid all background investigations by various departments in the US Government. He must have a lot of connections.
It baffles me that someone would actually think the US government would allow someone to run for senator or president without checking their background. That is STEP ONE of the process of becoming a candidate. Anyone who believes that the "government didn't check" or that "Obama isn't a natural citizen" is just full of **** and probably a closet racist at this point.
bryanc
Aug 11, 10:52 AM
I'm stuck in a contract for another year, so I'll be watching to see how this pans out. Hopefully, I'll be able to jump on a Rev B without reservations.
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
Given Apple's patent on the click-wheel interface, what do you think the likelihood of a virtual rotary phone interface? There are plenty of people who are now adults who've never 'dialled' a phone. It would be really slick if Apple could find a way for all of us old-farts to re-activiate our kinaesthetic memories and dial up and old friend using the click wheel on our new iPhones.
Cheers
stefman
Nov 28, 09:46 PM
What kind of ridiculous Mafia tactics are those? This is so stupid, what if I don't buy a single Universal song? Why should they get any money?
:mad:
:mad:
blahblah100
Mar 31, 07:31 PM
true, but the smugness and self righteousness of Google fanboys are so much worse.
HA HA. You have got to be kidding me.
HA HA. You have got to be kidding me.
Leoff
Sep 19, 08:25 AM
You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.
Note that I, and the previous commenter who I quoted, have been talking about MacBooks, not MacBook Pros.
OllyW
Mar 26, 10:46 AM
Will I be able to get Lion at a discount for the recent purchase or do I pay full price? I was just wondering. Thanks!
You'll only get a discount for Lion if you buy it just before (or after) the release date is announced. They only give you a couple of weeks though, if you buy it now and Lion comes out in the summer you'll be paying the full price.
You'll only get a discount for Lion if you buy it just before (or after) the release date is announced. They only give you a couple of weeks though, if you buy it now and Lion comes out in the summer you'll be paying the full price.
zero2dash
Jul 20, 09:24 AM
...Quad Duo?
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
...Quadra Duo?
...the "holy hell this is faster than you'll ever need" Mac? :D
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:19 PM
It matters that you describe it as fornication.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
NoNothing
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 09:52 AM
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
jeffereyj
Apr 6, 01:12 PM
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
marksman
Mar 31, 03:49 PM
This is the right move for Google as Android has become a cluster...
That being said it does go directly against how they have built android up, and how they have pitched it to businesses and consumers alike. This is a very significant change.
I think this actually opens the window for Microsoft and their mobile OS now. It is not free, but now it becomes a legitimate option compared to Android for all handset makers outside of Apple and perhaps HP if they ever make handsets.
It is funny one of the first things some people here would say when Android was brought up is "It is open!". You can hem and haw all you want, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer open. Google signing off on all changes and them having no timetable for releasing Honeycomb source code is not open in any way shape or form.
That being said it does go directly against how they have built android up, and how they have pitched it to businesses and consumers alike. This is a very significant change.
I think this actually opens the window for Microsoft and their mobile OS now. It is not free, but now it becomes a legitimate option compared to Android for all handset makers outside of Apple and perhaps HP if they ever make handsets.
It is funny one of the first things some people here would say when Android was brought up is "It is open!". You can hem and haw all you want, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer open. Google signing off on all changes and them having no timetable for releasing Honeycomb source code is not open in any way shape or form.