hulugu
Aug 2, 06:00 PM
...Actually it's the smug attitude of so many Mac owners that makes them such satisfying targets. You reap what you sow. I've been using Macs since 1984 (and PCs about as long) and Mac users get on my nerves sometimes.
Um, hello?
You've been using Macs since their inception, therefore you are a Mac user, who is according to you a smug and satisfying target.
Maybe, not all Mac users are the same monolithic group.
Um, hello?
You've been using Macs since their inception, therefore you are a Mac user, who is according to you a smug and satisfying target.
Maybe, not all Mac users are the same monolithic group.
Passante
Aug 3, 04:01 PM
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
Well now I'm not as certain ha ha .....um himmmm
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060803094301394
Well now I'm not as certain ha ha .....um himmmm
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060803094301394
spencers
Mar 25, 01:41 PM
666 MB :eek:
I've been noticing my phone has been draining the battery rather quickly. Hopefully this fixes it.
I've been noticing my phone has been draining the battery rather quickly. Hopefully this fixes it.
WhySoSerious
Mar 29, 09:36 AM
i hate voice recognition software...no matter what it's integrated with. i think it's gimmicky and rarely works reliably. pass
Leoff
Nov 27, 12:23 PM
Sometime I wonder if people actually use the products they talk about here.
The Rolling Stones have been in the iTunes music store for over a year. The currently have over 59 albums there and a new ep was released, I'm Free, just a couple of weeks ago.
Frank Zappa was on iTunes last summer and has since been removed. It was basically the albums that RYKODisc had re-mastered and released. There appears to be something going on with the Zappa Family Trust and RYKODisc over the rights.
Led Zepplin has never appeared on iTunes. However, Radio Head was on for a short time, but everyone who like Radio Head has already bought their one good album, The Bends.
Strange. I could have sworn I'd heard the Rolling Stones weren't on iTunes yet. Personally I HATE them, that's why I never checked.
Any other musicians not in the iTunes music store yet?
The Rolling Stones have been in the iTunes music store for over a year. The currently have over 59 albums there and a new ep was released, I'm Free, just a couple of weeks ago.
Frank Zappa was on iTunes last summer and has since been removed. It was basically the albums that RYKODisc had re-mastered and released. There appears to be something going on with the Zappa Family Trust and RYKODisc over the rights.
Led Zepplin has never appeared on iTunes. However, Radio Head was on for a short time, but everyone who like Radio Head has already bought their one good album, The Bends.
Strange. I could have sworn I'd heard the Rolling Stones weren't on iTunes yet. Personally I HATE them, that's why I never checked.
Any other musicians not in the iTunes music store yet?
benjs
Apr 13, 05:55 PM
Funny how they claim it's supposed to be nowhere near final software, yet it's releasing in a month and a half. I would think this is on bug ironing stage right?
To set the record straight, read that paragraph from Larry Jordan very carefully:
"While the slide show was identical to the February meeting, the demo was not. Randy Ubillos, who did the demo, added more features and additional explanations on effects (see the screen shot above). However, I was told later that the build that was demoed was the same build that was shown in February - and that the application has moved significantly forward since that time.
In other words, what we saw tonight was nowhere near the final form of the application."
So, assume that this build is from February 23rd, the exact date MacRumors reported this invitation-only showing of FCP X. Also assume that FCP X is released on June 1st (which seems overly optimistic to me). That's still roughly a three month period between beta and final release, with a distribution model whereby Apple is capable of making tweaks as late as... well... June 1st. In addition, I would imagine the February showing was earlier than the 23rd, and the release date will be later than the 1st. Oh... there's also the fact that since this is a ground-up reinterpretation of FCP, this has probably been worked on for quite some time.
To set the record straight, read that paragraph from Larry Jordan very carefully:
"While the slide show was identical to the February meeting, the demo was not. Randy Ubillos, who did the demo, added more features and additional explanations on effects (see the screen shot above). However, I was told later that the build that was demoed was the same build that was shown in February - and that the application has moved significantly forward since that time.
In other words, what we saw tonight was nowhere near the final form of the application."
So, assume that this build is from February 23rd, the exact date MacRumors reported this invitation-only showing of FCP X. Also assume that FCP X is released on June 1st (which seems overly optimistic to me). That's still roughly a three month period between beta and final release, with a distribution model whereby Apple is capable of making tweaks as late as... well... June 1st. In addition, I would imagine the February showing was earlier than the 23rd, and the release date will be later than the 1st. Oh... there's also the fact that since this is a ground-up reinterpretation of FCP, this has probably been worked on for quite some time.
macUser2007
Nov 3, 03:31 PM
On a full sized computer? That's horrible. Adobe has to get their act together and make flash more efficient before they can be allowed on the iphone. :rolleyes:
Well, yes, on a full-size C2D iMac.
But, did you notice the part where on a similar, C2D AOPEN Mini, running Windows 7, IE8 runs the same Flash movie at 0%-1%, Chrome and Firefox at 4%, but Safari goes to almost 30%.
I'd say it's Apple that has the problem, and not Adobe.
Flash works just fine, and it's useful and necessary to the vast majority of users. Adobe seems to be doing a very good job with 10, and from what I've seen, it runs just fine on mobiles presumably less powerful than the iPhone.
The way I see it, if there is a pi$$ing match between Apple and Adobe, and Adobe takes its ball (Creative Suite) and walks away from Apple, the Mac OS will die, for all practical purposes.
Anyway, the iPhone must have Flash, if it is to remain competitive, and Apple really needs to dedicate some resources, and make sure Flash (and Java) run better on OS X.
Well, yes, on a full-size C2D iMac.
But, did you notice the part where on a similar, C2D AOPEN Mini, running Windows 7, IE8 runs the same Flash movie at 0%-1%, Chrome and Firefox at 4%, but Safari goes to almost 30%.
I'd say it's Apple that has the problem, and not Adobe.
Flash works just fine, and it's useful and necessary to the vast majority of users. Adobe seems to be doing a very good job with 10, and from what I've seen, it runs just fine on mobiles presumably less powerful than the iPhone.
The way I see it, if there is a pi$$ing match between Apple and Adobe, and Adobe takes its ball (Creative Suite) and walks away from Apple, the Mac OS will die, for all practical purposes.
Anyway, the iPhone must have Flash, if it is to remain competitive, and Apple really needs to dedicate some resources, and make sure Flash (and Java) run better on OS X.
dagaz
Oct 27, 04:04 AM
Think you're imagining it. Have updated my MB and i still can't hear the fan in normal usage. I expect it will kick in at some time when it decides things are getting a bit hot.
I think the original poster was talking about the speaker volume, and I happen to agree - I think my speaker volume is slightly louder.
I think the original poster was talking about the speaker volume, and I happen to agree - I think my speaker volume is slightly louder.
Chundles
Sep 12, 04:44 PM
iLounge has a "First Look" article with photos of all models and accessories. They say that the new nanos have the Search and Smart Scroll feature of the new 5G iPod. Hopefully we with the plastic nanos won't miss out on that. I'm expecting an iPod Updater soon.
Leddy
Apr 13, 07:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?
I think you're overstating this "existential crisis".
There's a lot of skill behind what professional editors do. You don't just pick up the same set of brushes and achieve what Monet or Picasso did ... The divide between professional and amateur will still exist even with the same toolset.
I'm loving the new look/style/features though will await further clarification and a quiet month before I upgrade my previous version.
Best Wishes.
If you think about it, it's not all too surprising that some of these "professionals" are getting so worked up and sulky over this release. The notion that "pro editing" can belong to just about anyone, rather than an exclusive circle of elites, poses an existential crisis. Apple's re-thinking of editing is also a re-thinking of what it means to be "professional". The announcement sheds light on a future in which their "advanced", learned techniques are no longer advantageous. The "industry pros" are facing the plight of impending impotence. It's not something anyone would really openly admit, but I think they're feeling a bit naked, stripped of their status.
Who can blame them for being pissy?
I think you're overstating this "existential crisis".
There's a lot of skill behind what professional editors do. You don't just pick up the same set of brushes and achieve what Monet or Picasso did ... The divide between professional and amateur will still exist even with the same toolset.
I'm loving the new look/style/features though will await further clarification and a quiet month before I upgrade my previous version.
Best Wishes.
p0intblank
Aug 3, 05:10 PM
What are these????
I don't know about the bottom one, but the top is the Intel Core Duo chip. Someone thinks it may say Intel Core 2 Duo, but that's another post entirely. :p
I don't know about the bottom one, but the top is the Intel Core Duo chip. Someone thinks it may say Intel Core 2 Duo, but that's another post entirely. :p
DrFrankTM
Jul 25, 07:42 AM
One of the most practical/feasible forms may be to just have 2 screens...an iPod as one screen AND a Tablet screen (i.e. eInk, LCD, etc.). In this way, regular iPod users can CHOOSE to just carry around JUST their iPod for music/video, or take along an ADDITIONAL tablet screen if they desire to watch a movie on the larger screen or read documents (e-books) or email or other apps (albeit with a shorter battery life).
Need to still have a "cool" form factor, such that the iPod nests into the tablet screen seamlessly and not some stupid corded device.
This idea would give the consumer both expandability and more incentive to buy an iPod. What most consumers DON'T want is to buy more and more devices that don't "leverage" each other. MOST consumers don't have an unlimited amount of disposable income to buy a shuffle, a nano, an iPodV, a Mac Tablet, an iPhone, etc.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I think the big-screen (e-ink?) add-on the way you describe it makes the most sense. I was clueless as to how the second screen could fit on the iPod, but I think your idea's pretty feasible with today's tech and would be pretty usable too. If you want to read for just a few minutes, then you don't need the add-on. But if you sit down to read for a few hours, then you plug the bigger screen and you're ready to go. Chances are you won't try to read War and Peace on your way to the supermarket, so you don't need to lug the second screen around all the time. If Apple came out with something like that, I'd buy one right away, although I must say I'd like a color screen, even if it only displays a few really basic colors.
Of course, if the reader does not require the iPod but merely uses it as a storage device to pull stuff from, I think it would indeed boost iPod sales because the iPod would effectively become an add-on for the reader, so it would become attractive to some people who just don't care about the iPod's music capabilities. If the reader is built with the iPod in mind, it could easily have some kind of built-in iPod "dock", as you suggested. Yeah... It seems so perfect that I wonder why Apple hasn't released it yet!!! :P
Need to still have a "cool" form factor, such that the iPod nests into the tablet screen seamlessly and not some stupid corded device.
This idea would give the consumer both expandability and more incentive to buy an iPod. What most consumers DON'T want is to buy more and more devices that don't "leverage" each other. MOST consumers don't have an unlimited amount of disposable income to buy a shuffle, a nano, an iPodV, a Mac Tablet, an iPhone, etc.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I think the big-screen (e-ink?) add-on the way you describe it makes the most sense. I was clueless as to how the second screen could fit on the iPod, but I think your idea's pretty feasible with today's tech and would be pretty usable too. If you want to read for just a few minutes, then you don't need the add-on. But if you sit down to read for a few hours, then you plug the bigger screen and you're ready to go. Chances are you won't try to read War and Peace on your way to the supermarket, so you don't need to lug the second screen around all the time. If Apple came out with something like that, I'd buy one right away, although I must say I'd like a color screen, even if it only displays a few really basic colors.
Of course, if the reader does not require the iPod but merely uses it as a storage device to pull stuff from, I think it would indeed boost iPod sales because the iPod would effectively become an add-on for the reader, so it would become attractive to some people who just don't care about the iPod's music capabilities. If the reader is built with the iPod in mind, it could easily have some kind of built-in iPod "dock", as you suggested. Yeah... It seems so perfect that I wonder why Apple hasn't released it yet!!! :P
aaronious
Oct 16, 02:10 PM
Jobs' brilliance shines through in this interview. Keep the hits coming Steve!
He's so good, he makes their "killer" feature, wireless sharing, sound dork-tastic!
All the while making listenign together sexy as hell.
You go girl!
He's so good, he makes their "killer" feature, wireless sharing, sound dork-tastic!
All the while making listenign together sexy as hell.
You go girl!
dogsbody
Sep 12, 03:29 PM
Is it just me, or is the 'Movies' tab missing the majority of the videos that were in my iTunes Library... :rolleyes:
Maybe they aren't technically "Movies" any more and that's why everyone is complaining about Apple forgetting to include a Music Videos section.
Maybe they aren't technically "Movies" any more and that's why everyone is complaining about Apple forgetting to include a Music Videos section.
Snowy_River
Aug 4, 08:33 PM
Here ya go, I did a little updating ;)
Nice job, but you needed to get the color casting a little better of the Leopard disk. How about this:
http://www.ghwphoto.com/roadmap.jpg
Nice job, but you needed to get the color casting a little better of the Leopard disk. How about this:
http://www.ghwphoto.com/roadmap.jpg
macUser2007
Nov 4, 02:25 PM
...
Did you not notice in those numbers that FLASH doesn't work well on ALL MACS ON ALL BROWSERS ??? And FLASH is the reason for crashes on both POWERPC and INTEL Macs, even brand new Macs, from what I'm reading in other threads here on MacRumors.
....
Please people, think before you put your feet in your mouths.
Uhm, you are a bit confused.
First, Flash works just fine on most modern Macs. The only noticeable issue I see is, that on a Mac Mini C2D 2.0GHz and a Mac Book C2D 2.0GHz the fans go crazy when viewing Flash.
The problem is, that Flash in OS X requires much higher CPU exertion, than Flash in Windows. But also, in my experience, running Flash in Safari pushes the CPU significantly harder, than running Flash in Firefox, Camino or even Chrome (which is also a Webkit browser.) See this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8739278&postcount=427) for exact numbers.
Which tells me, that Apple has done a poor job of getting Safari to work well with Flash.
In addition, even if Adobe is lazy, obtuse, incompetent, or whatever you want to believe they are, during all these years, Apple could have dedicated a competent employee, to guide Adobe and help make Flash work better on OS X. Any normal business would have made this effort, if they thought it was a problem worth investing in. But I bet, that Apple figures that most users don't even realize that there is a high CPU load, and of the once who do, at least some will be dumb enough to just blame Flash for everything.
BTW, Safari has major issues with Java stuff as well, and most Safari crashes I had in OS 10.5.x, were due to that, not Flash.
As to the iPhone, the issue is most likely Apple's reluctance to open the door to Flash apps competition to its own Applications Store. I am certain, that Apple will have Flash on the iPhone, once it starts losing sales to the new crop of Androids coming up.
Did you not notice in those numbers that FLASH doesn't work well on ALL MACS ON ALL BROWSERS ??? And FLASH is the reason for crashes on both POWERPC and INTEL Macs, even brand new Macs, from what I'm reading in other threads here on MacRumors.
....
Please people, think before you put your feet in your mouths.
Uhm, you are a bit confused.
First, Flash works just fine on most modern Macs. The only noticeable issue I see is, that on a Mac Mini C2D 2.0GHz and a Mac Book C2D 2.0GHz the fans go crazy when viewing Flash.
The problem is, that Flash in OS X requires much higher CPU exertion, than Flash in Windows. But also, in my experience, running Flash in Safari pushes the CPU significantly harder, than running Flash in Firefox, Camino or even Chrome (which is also a Webkit browser.) See this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8739278&postcount=427) for exact numbers.
Which tells me, that Apple has done a poor job of getting Safari to work well with Flash.
In addition, even if Adobe is lazy, obtuse, incompetent, or whatever you want to believe they are, during all these years, Apple could have dedicated a competent employee, to guide Adobe and help make Flash work better on OS X. Any normal business would have made this effort, if they thought it was a problem worth investing in. But I bet, that Apple figures that most users don't even realize that there is a high CPU load, and of the once who do, at least some will be dumb enough to just blame Flash for everything.
BTW, Safari has major issues with Java stuff as well, and most Safari crashes I had in OS 10.5.x, were due to that, not Flash.
As to the iPhone, the issue is most likely Apple's reluctance to open the door to Flash apps competition to its own Applications Store. I am certain, that Apple will have Flash on the iPhone, once it starts losing sales to the new crop of Androids coming up.
Joshwawilson
May 5, 09:49 PM
I swore to myself When I bought iPad 2 that I'd wait for iPad 4 to upgrade again...don't know if I'll be able to pass up a 3d iPad tho!
srf4real
Mar 4, 06:14 PM
what lens are you using for these? pretty damn sharp and I assume your a fair distance from the shore!
Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 at f/4, about 50 yards away (it's a fair amount of crop)
I was knee deep in the water- the lens w/ body combo E-5 is weather sealed.Does well even with a 2x teleconverter, which on Olympus makes 400mm = 800mm in 35mm equivalent.. perfect surf setup imo. Here's one wide open with the t/c, original resolution after crop.
click image for large size
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee126/surferRob_photos/Corey.jpg
Camera Model: E-3
Focal Length: 400.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
Aperture: f/7.0
ISO Equiv.: 160
Olympus Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 at f/4, about 50 yards away (it's a fair amount of crop)
I was knee deep in the water- the lens w/ body combo E-5 is weather sealed.Does well even with a 2x teleconverter, which on Olympus makes 400mm = 800mm in 35mm equivalent.. perfect surf setup imo. Here's one wide open with the t/c, original resolution after crop.
click image for large size
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee126/surferRob_photos/Corey.jpg
Camera Model: E-3
Focal Length: 400.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)
Aperture: f/7.0
ISO Equiv.: 160
longofest
Nov 6, 11:13 PM
Wouldn't it be great if a graphics card appeared in these updates...?
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
nehunte
Nov 12, 10:46 AM
Anybody having issues with Facebook at all? It redirects me to mobile facebook half the time. I hope Apple can resolve these issues. They need people like Facebook on board with them.
NinjaHERO
Apr 2, 08:13 AM
The Iphone 4 camera takes amazing shots right now. If this is actually an improvement, then it would rock.
But since these boards screamed at all of us non camera experts last time for thinking that mega pixels mean a better picture, I will wait to hear about the quality.
But since these boards screamed at all of us non camera experts last time for thinking that mega pixels mean a better picture, I will wait to hear about the quality.
techwarrior
Nov 13, 11:54 AM
Interesting...perhaps this developers whining got somebody's attention at Apple, 3.03 is available on App Store... very short list of enhancements... "Bug Fixes" and "Japanese/Chinese Localization".
digitalfrog
Mar 4, 05:37 AM
Superhero ... or maybe not ...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5428490294_7009e98c81_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5428490294_7009e98c81_b.jpg
Catfish_Man
Aug 3, 04:00 PM
I have it on relatively good authority that they change the banner after the keynote. Seems ridiculous to me though.