MacVault
Sep 19, 04:36 PM
Err, buy an external HD or upgrade your iBook HD!
I have a 1Ghz iBook with a 80GB HD (upgraded it myself) and 2 160GB firewire HD's so what was your point?
My point is...
1) The Movies take up huge amounts of storage space.
2) I hate having to always plug external drives into my iBook.
3) We need redundancy for storing these movies we buy. An "external HD" just won't cut it.
4) If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
I have a 1Ghz iBook with a 80GB HD (upgraded it myself) and 2 160GB firewire HD's so what was your point?
My point is...
1) The Movies take up huge amounts of storage space.
2) I hate having to always plug external drives into my iBook.
3) We need redundancy for storing these movies we buy. An "external HD" just won't cut it.
4) If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
h00ligan
Apr 20, 10:47 AM
Great input.
Edited above. Re :gps
Edited above. Re :gps
cwt1nospam
Mar 16, 09:19 PM
It this utter ignorance and false sense of security in the Mac user base that I would use to my advantage if I were a cyber-criminal.
Many have tried. Most — probably all, but I'll leave that open — have failed. I can be completely ignorant or completely aware, but my options remain the same: perform system updates as they become available.
AV software is an unnecessary expense both monetarily and computationally. It offers no additional protection beyond that provided by the OS, and if some day some one does develop a successful virus I'll probably download the patch from Apple long before the virus ever attempts to compromise my system, so even then AV software is still a waste of money and computing power.
By the way, I've been using OS X since "Cheetah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)" in March of 2001. Ever since then I've been told that I need to prepare for the day when the OS would come under attack. Here we are ten years later and I'm still waiting. I will not be surprised if I'm still waiting in 2021.
Many have tried. Most — probably all, but I'll leave that open — have failed. I can be completely ignorant or completely aware, but my options remain the same: perform system updates as they become available.
AV software is an unnecessary expense both monetarily and computationally. It offers no additional protection beyond that provided by the OS, and if some day some one does develop a successful virus I'll probably download the patch from Apple long before the virus ever attempts to compromise my system, so even then AV software is still a waste of money and computing power.
By the way, I've been using OS X since "Cheetah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X)" in March of 2001. Ever since then I've been told that I need to prepare for the day when the OS would come under attack. Here we are ten years later and I'm still waiting. I will not be surprised if I'm still waiting in 2021.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:04 PM
If apple paid 100 million, they should then sue their lawyers for fraud. This suit would not even come close to 100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:37 AM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
infidel69
Mar 29, 11:26 AM
no one uses windows phones....and for a good reason too...it sucks, it sucks, oh and it sucks....
Somebody's in denial. Just because you say it three times doesn't mean it's going to come true Dorothy. Why do you care anyway?
Somebody's in denial. Just because you say it three times doesn't mean it's going to come true Dorothy. Why do you care anyway?
Homy
Sep 9, 10:13 AM
I'm just not sure why everyone is so impressed with these imacs.
Faster processor, double the RAM, cheaper AND 21-37% better game performance:
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
Faster processor, double the RAM, cheaper AND 21-37% better game performance:
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
Josias
Sep 10, 06:15 AM
It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 05:30 PM
As much as I love rumors approximating nearer and nearer some state of acuity, actually seeing the product a day ahead is a tad disspaointing. It reminds me of the late night when Time Canada unveiled the G4 iMac. Well it'll still be fun to watch me Opie tomorrow, especially since she's promoting iPods over the Dell Ditty she did a couple years back.
jouster
Aug 31, 06:14 PM
I am NOT sold on portable video as a unique selling point...
Obviously, since it wouldn't be unique. There are plenty of PVPs on the market.
Obviously, since it wouldn't be unique. There are plenty of PVPs on the market.
Ravich
May 3, 05:05 PM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:
Why would Apple do that?
Why would Apple do that?
Mundy
Sep 10, 11:41 AM
Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
SockRolid
Apr 28, 03:26 PM
Not bad, considering the worldwide economic downturn. Just wait until the economy heats up again...
sixth
Aug 29, 08:04 AM
RIGHT...good joke guys...
brepublican
Sep 2, 04:02 PM
Hey guys, just hope some stuff comes out on the 5th, like new MBP with some C2D, i guess that should show up... and doesn't need any kind of keynote show.... and maybe the mini ... to with some improved specs ... as far fot the MB, that is what I'm waiting for ... shouldn't show up at least by the end of the month !!! But who KNOWS ..... ???? :rolleyes: A litle suprise would be nice !!!!
I think the focus is on the iMac and mini. I have been waiting long enough for this...
This is gonna be one hot upgrade:D :D
I think the focus is on the iMac and mini. I have been waiting long enough for this...
This is gonna be one hot upgrade:D :D
anim8or
Aug 31, 12:58 PM
No way,
Glossy screen is the worst thing for professionals that depend on color accuracy.
As for the Isight, I think they will keep off from the Cinema displays. They will make an smaller format stand alone IMHO.
I don't think a Special Event will happen for these products.
I totally wholeheartedly agree the glossy screens are not a always an advantage, if they do it as an option for those who want it then cool but not as standard please!
Glossy screen is the worst thing for professionals that depend on color accuracy.
As for the Isight, I think they will keep off from the Cinema displays. They will make an smaller format stand alone IMHO.
I don't think a Special Event will happen for these products.
I totally wholeheartedly agree the glossy screens are not a always an advantage, if they do it as an option for those who want it then cool but not as standard please!
Coolerking
Sep 8, 09:03 AM
Leopard will even run on PowerPC macs.
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
karthi
Sep 19, 04:20 PM
It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle...
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
howard
Sep 19, 02:30 PM
jeez, thats about 10x what i would have expected.
a lot of people I have talked to thought that it was "crazy" to expect people to wait 30+mins to download a movie.
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
a lot of people I have talked to thought that it was "crazy" to expect people to wait 30+mins to download a movie.
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:59 AM
They don't care about us, they just want our money, like any business.
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried. It's already reached bottom.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
I can't dumb this statement down any further, sorry.
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried. It's already reached bottom.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
mazola
Sep 5, 12:17 PM
It'll wind up being a leather case for the Apple Remote (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6144003/wo/7Y7flo4AsURz2NOCZS61W2wPnre/1.0.19.1.0.8.25.7.11.3.3).
You heard it here first.
You heard it here first.
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. ;)
AidenShaw
Mar 22, 02:38 PM
I want to know where to get a list of products that hook onto Thunderbolt.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Rocketman
From terminal, to see all the shipping Thunderbolt products use the command
cat /dev/null
http://www.lacie.com/us/index.htm
Coming summer 2011 - at least 3 months away.
Silentwave
Sep 16, 01:45 PM
I don't like the sound of "off the shelf" parts. That sounds like Apple is going to rebrand an existing phone or place the guts of another company's phone in their casing.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'll agree about the motorola thing! I've had my share of Moto handsets over the years and I've hated every single one. My primary complaint? underpowered and unresponsive. LAG! I would like it if they would just stick a Core Solo ULV in there and we'll be good! ;)
I'd love it to be unlocked too. But they'll probably make it GSM so i'll need to switch networks. Unless they're REALLY nice and make it GSM/CDMA like my Samsung A790 (about to be on my third of those- they have a knack for survival unless you hurl them onto concrete 5 feet below you as hard as you can throw them). I'd pay tons of money for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment