stagi
Sep 19, 11:47 PM
Is everyone forgetting about the "special" dock kit Apple sells with "yellow" and S-video as well as audio out jacks on it, and a nice little remote AND another charger and sync cable? With the old 320x240 shows, it was barely watchable, lots of artifacts and about like fair quality VCR tape. With the new 640 x 480, the output is VERY watchable, not quite as good as DVD but better than my DirecTV digital signal. And, this little bundle of usefulness costs $99 and is available NOW. I have used one since about Christmas of last year, and it works pretty well. You DON'T have to wait for the iTV or confine your viewing to the computer screen or an ipod.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=E868E117&nplm=MA242LL%2FA
Or I have been using my regular dock with a seperate monster cable I bought.
With the new Res. I think it looks awesome. The only bummer is the battery life on my 30GB video ipod.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=E868E117&nplm=MA242LL%2FA
Or I have been using my regular dock with a seperate monster cable I bought.
With the new Res. I think it looks awesome. The only bummer is the battery life on my 30GB video ipod.
macintel4me
Sep 4, 11:40 PM
This seems contradictory.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
$10 to buy to your computer. It then streams to your living room using the 'new device'.
10 bucks, but it only streams?
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe this is just pieces of the puzzle.
$10 to buy to your computer. It then streams to your living room using the 'new device'.
M-O
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
The unibody was already a giant leap forward. How much better can Apple get?
that's what i thought about the Aluminum PowerBooks... but i was wrong.
that's what i thought about the Aluminum PowerBooks... but i was wrong.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 16, 03:27 AM
in all seriousness people, this thing http://snowulf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/USB-3-Mini-B-Connector.jpg is going to scare people off...
what is that. The usb 3.0 port on my PC looks nothing like that
what is that. The usb 3.0 port on my PC looks nothing like that
happylittlemac
Apr 30, 04:35 PM
Sandy Bridge iMac's sound great, but I'm still waiting for any rumors about the Mac Mini before deciding where to put my cash down.
ericinboston
Apr 28, 05:24 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
turbobass
Mar 22, 08:45 PM
I just want to say a big "AMERICA, **** YEAH!" about this ...
But also I wanted to say we should be rewarding WIRELESS protocols. ThunderBolt = Fast, great. Polite golf clap. No AMERICA **** YEAH for ThunderBolt. Everything should be WIRELESS now. 2011 baby!:mad:
But also I wanted to say we should be rewarding WIRELESS protocols. ThunderBolt = Fast, great. Polite golf clap. No AMERICA **** YEAH for ThunderBolt. Everything should be WIRELESS now. 2011 baby!:mad:
ksz
Jul 14, 11:40 AM
I have overclocked. My point is that someone buying a Professional Workstation and trying to overclock it is childish.
Overclocking has its uses, but I tend to agree that for most business applications, overclocking is frowned upon. I will not overclock a processor on a system I am spec'ing for a customer because it is a form of gambling. When you have to meet MTBF requirements, you tend to be conservative and cautious.
Overclocking has its uses, but I tend to agree that for most business applications, overclocking is frowned upon. I will not overclock a processor on a system I am spec'ing for a customer because it is a form of gambling. When you have to meet MTBF requirements, you tend to be conservative and cautious.
RichardBeer
Apr 11, 01:54 AM
I sense a lawsuit coming....
AidenShaw
Sep 11, 09:45 PM
I mean, imagine where we'd be if Steve Jobs didn't have the forsight to develop an Intel version of OS X from the very beginning, 6 years ago?
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.
They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX
Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.
2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
GGJstudios
Mar 18, 07:58 PM
It certainly has a huge amount to do with market share and therefore return on investment in creating malware.
False. Read post #95 and post #59.
False. Read post #95 and post #59.
nemaslov
Sep 15, 06:10 PM
then why can't McGiver (MacGiver) make it right now?:D
entropi
Apr 25, 02:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I just hope they manage to keep it as cool and quiet as our current mba 11" (1,6 Ghz C2D)... I prefer quiet computing over ultraspeed in a mba, for shure!
"Shure" Great company aren't they? Had the 535s for a while and loved them. (I'm assuming you know about high end audio? Lol)
meh. "sure" ok? :-) (I know all about high end audio, but I'm more of a apogee & genelec-fan...)
I just hope they manage to keep it as cool and quiet as our current mba 11" (1,6 Ghz C2D)... I prefer quiet computing over ultraspeed in a mba, for shure!
"Shure" Great company aren't they? Had the 535s for a while and loved them. (I'm assuming you know about high end audio? Lol)
meh. "sure" ok? :-) (I know all about high end audio, but I'm more of a apogee & genelec-fan...)
apolloa
Apr 30, 06:09 PM
Thing is though... if the new top end MacBook Pro 2.3 can keep up with and beat even a current 8 core Mac Pro in some instances and trounce the quad core model, just how powerful is a top end Sandy Bridge iMac going to be :eek::confused:
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
And seeing as Apple blessed us with quad core in the laptops, I would bet my remainder of my hair on my head that the top end iMac option at most will have six core sandy bridge :D
GGJstudios
Mar 22, 01:02 PM
The theory that OS X is completely secure is equally nonsense.
So who said OS X is completely secure? Go back and read the statements that have been made.
So who said OS X is completely secure? Go back and read the statements that have been made.
fxtech
Apr 19, 08:37 AM
Who is this Samsung who has developed most of its own stuff? Living abroad casts a good shadow on Samsung, but in its home country, Sammy is just a thug with endless pockets (thanks to tax freedom granted by the Korean government). Samsung buy out other techs and then put their badge and later, establish their name as the manufacturer. They are NOT innovators.
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:23 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.I might be able to slide with a $1799 education discount tower. I want a laptop though. :(
AidenShaw
Sep 5, 12:19 PM
The TV makes a terrible monitor for any other computer use, and I just don't want the computer in my TV room.
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
insignificantMB
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
YESSSS after 3 years of waiting!
mKTank
Dec 31, 01:57 AM
Yes, this sticky obtrusive and uninstallable piece of junk that constantly plagues people in the PC world (not to mention it radically slows your machine down. I recently installed Flash player on the PC side and without my permission McAffe was installed....ARGGGHH. Now they want to infect the Mac world....PLEASE NO!
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Hurf. There was a checkbox for installing a trial version. You didn't uncheck it.
Maybe this is why you're using OSX then. It makes choices for you. Not yours, but you know...
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 02:57 PM
Updated my 5G iPod to 1.2, loaded Quadrophenia, and yes, there is FINALLY gapless. :D
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
craigsharp@spym
Sep 14, 08:54 AM
iPhone.org is a hoax, i think. I'm not sure, but it is kinda funny that Apple owns mammals.org? why in the heck does apple own that domain name? Kinda lookin forward to seeing the the all new Apple Mammal, It's a robot that looks and feels human, can think and even reproduces the same way a human does. LOL Oh and it can play the new movies too.
shadowx
Sep 26, 02:11 PM
This is fine. I'm sick of those cripplers at Verizon.
Yeah - if Verizon didn't have the most comprehensive coverage and good customer service I'd go back to T-mobile. I'll never own a bluetooth phone from Verizon, that's for sure...
Yeah - if Verizon didn't have the most comprehensive coverage and good customer service I'd go back to T-mobile. I'll never own a bluetooth phone from Verizon, that's for sure...