MacRumors
Mar 29, 11:07 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/29/idc-projects-windows-phone-to-top-iphone-in-market-share-by-2015/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
%IMG_DESC_2%
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/29/120017-idc_2015_smartphone_projections.png
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?
macnulty
Sep 6, 10:25 PM
Finally G5 Powerbooks.
dblissmn
Apr 25, 02:39 PM
Color me skeptical.
The current case is pretty good. There's room for improvement � questionable assembly of internal components, and above all the switch to a removal bottom rather than a removable top plate meant a serious weakness around the Ethernet and Firewire 800 port. These could easily be fixed by using, say, Indigo thermal pads instead of glopping on paste, and on the outside of the case ditching the Ethernet and Firewire for slimmer alternatives that don't weaken the case �*namely a second Thunderbolt port and having three USB ports (3.0 of course) that could support Gigabit Ethernet dongles. And then you recast it in LiquidMetal, and enable customers to decide up front whether they wanted the second drive bay to be blade-SSD or optical, leaving the traditional drive in the first bay.
What you'd have then is the strongest, best designed full-featured laptop case in the business. It's not a major change, but a refinement that adds both strength and versatility to an already good design.
But I fear what Apple has in mind is basically an entire range of Macbook Air laptops. The Air is a fine computer, no doubt, but it's not the portable desktop I want and never can be without supporting two drives and discrete graphics in one way or another.
The current case is pretty good. There's room for improvement � questionable assembly of internal components, and above all the switch to a removal bottom rather than a removable top plate meant a serious weakness around the Ethernet and Firewire 800 port. These could easily be fixed by using, say, Indigo thermal pads instead of glopping on paste, and on the outside of the case ditching the Ethernet and Firewire for slimmer alternatives that don't weaken the case �*namely a second Thunderbolt port and having three USB ports (3.0 of course) that could support Gigabit Ethernet dongles. And then you recast it in LiquidMetal, and enable customers to decide up front whether they wanted the second drive bay to be blade-SSD or optical, leaving the traditional drive in the first bay.
What you'd have then is the strongest, best designed full-featured laptop case in the business. It's not a major change, but a refinement that adds both strength and versatility to an already good design.
But I fear what Apple has in mind is basically an entire range of Macbook Air laptops. The Air is a fine computer, no doubt, but it's not the portable desktop I want and never can be without supporting two drives and discrete graphics in one way or another.
mambodancer
Oct 28, 09:15 AM
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
My first gen 5GB iPod is still going strong after 5 years.
Also, even if the battery went totally dead, why would you throw a perfectly good iPod away? I use mine as a portable hard drive and in the car with an FM transmitter (connected to the lighter outlet to power the iPod) to listen to podcasts and music. Neither requires the battery for either of these functions. If you jog or bike or listen to your iPod while travelling and don't have access to power then replacing the battery is problematic but not impossible. In fact the local Microcenter here in Denver sells iPod battery replacements for less than $100 and will install them if you don't want to.
I don't think this is the problem some people seem to think it is and if anyone reading these posts wants to throw out their iPod that has a bad battery please contact me and I will gladly take it off your hands.
My first gen 5GB iPod is still going strong after 5 years.
Also, even if the battery went totally dead, why would you throw a perfectly good iPod away? I use mine as a portable hard drive and in the car with an FM transmitter (connected to the lighter outlet to power the iPod) to listen to podcasts and music. Neither requires the battery for either of these functions. If you jog or bike or listen to your iPod while travelling and don't have access to power then replacing the battery is problematic but not impossible. In fact the local Microcenter here in Denver sells iPod battery replacements for less than $100 and will install them if you don't want to.
I don't think this is the problem some people seem to think it is and if anyone reading these posts wants to throw out their iPod that has a bad battery please contact me and I will gladly take it off your hands.
laidbackliam
Oct 13, 01:59 AM
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
true, but there is a parralel could be drawn between audiophiles and mac "zealots".
and its fiber optic vs copper plated. its the rca connectors taht would be gold or silver plated, and yes, gold sounds better, transfers signal better.
my two cents :)
true, but there is a parralel could be drawn between audiophiles and mac "zealots".
and its fiber optic vs copper plated. its the rca connectors taht would be gold or silver plated, and yes, gold sounds better, transfers signal better.
my two cents :)
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:23 PM
You know what�s interesting is while browsing around with my iDisk app on the iPhone, I noticed the iDisk app displays Adobe�s Photoshop icon for PSD files. I wonder if Adobe gave Apple explicit permission to use their Photoshop file icon in the iDisk app?
Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.
Actually, Adobe DOES license their icons, formats, etc. for Apple and Microsoft to use in programs, operating systems, etc. So if Apple come out with an app, like the MobileMe iDisk, then I'm sure that they can use them. It's just hypocritical of Apple to not do the same for developers.
googolplex
May 3, 01:56 PM
I use my 2010 27" iMac as a monitor for a PC gaming rig that utilizes the mini-display port and I must say that this will be the last iMac I own until they change this. This was one of main selling points for me since I could still use a pc and not have to suffer with the iMac's poor gaming performance.
No matter how you slice it, the integrated video card with the current iMacs CANNOT drive the resolution these displays use.
The only option is build a high end PC that can push that kinda resolution at decent framerates.
Now that they have removed the option and restricted it to TB only display ports, we are now forced to "upgrade" to a new mac tho it still cant hold a candle to whats available to system builders today.
I made the switch to Mac years and years ago but I think it's finally run it's course. When this thing takes a **** and they offer me a new one through my Apple Care, I'll sell it and buy a real display an perhaps mac mini.
Apple has fallen so far behind the desktop computing business and its clear they want to funnel their remaining customers through this purchase path.
I'm confused. What has changed about the target display mode? Isn't it still there?
No matter how you slice it, the integrated video card with the current iMacs CANNOT drive the resolution these displays use.
The only option is build a high end PC that can push that kinda resolution at decent framerates.
Now that they have removed the option and restricted it to TB only display ports, we are now forced to "upgrade" to a new mac tho it still cant hold a candle to whats available to system builders today.
I made the switch to Mac years and years ago but I think it's finally run it's course. When this thing takes a **** and they offer me a new one through my Apple Care, I'll sell it and buy a real display an perhaps mac mini.
Apple has fallen so far behind the desktop computing business and its clear they want to funnel their remaining customers through this purchase path.
I'm confused. What has changed about the target display mode? Isn't it still there?
PlaceofDis
Oct 27, 08:48 AM
I have no problem with Greenpeace being at the show as long as they back up their findings with facts and conduct themselves in a civil manner. If Microsoft stepped out of line at the show, I would expect them to be kicked out of the show as well.
agreed. Apple should work hard to be a environmentally safe company, but that should stand for all companies too. i don't see why any one single company should be singled out at this point.
agreed. Apple should work hard to be a environmentally safe company, but that should stand for all companies too. i don't see why any one single company should be singled out at this point.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 09:29 AM
What is it with some of you guys? Does hope spring eternal, or what!
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
What's with us? We want C2D MBP's. That's all.
Though I'm very interested to see what's going to be announced at this event, outside of MBP's.
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
What's with us? We want C2D MBP's. That's all.
Though I'm very interested to see what's going to be announced at this event, outside of MBP's.
Eidorian
Jul 19, 10:50 AM
Hmmm, it's a tough one. But I think the price vs. performance of Conroe being so much better than Merom will mean that Apple will try their best to cram one into the iMac. It would mean a more powerful computer that's cheaper for Apple to produce, and it is a desktop after all.
But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png
And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif
25 degrees celcius with speedstep...
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif
And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.
But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png
And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif
25 degrees celcius with speedstep...
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif
And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.
Motley
Sep 14, 08:14 AM
Oh good, I was just coming down from anticipation for the last special event, but Apple's always there with my fix.
Rocketman
Aug 31, 03:24 PM
I don't care what it is, just give us something new to talk about. Mac Pro really nice machine but we saw it coming months in advance. Maybe not he exact spec but yeah we all knew it was coming. Same with Merom, Conroe etc... Give us something new, really new.
Get used to the new way. The only real suprise news from now on willl be specific software features, cosmetics and any new details not widely anticipated. The primary processor and platform/form factors are likely to remain unsurprising.
Furthermore, chip advances just took a big leap. Do not expect that again for 2 or more years.
Rocketman
Get used to the new way. The only real suprise news from now on willl be specific software features, cosmetics and any new details not widely anticipated. The primary processor and platform/form factors are likely to remain unsurprising.
Furthermore, chip advances just took a big leap. Do not expect that again for 2 or more years.
Rocketman
OdduWon
Sep 26, 11:44 AM
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
well, also it makes perfect sense since cingular is the only provider that i know of that has itunes capable phones. really no suprise here. this is why when my dog ate my ericson t637 i just got a $50 referb and held off on buying a new phone. telepod is going to be great!
well, also it makes perfect sense since cingular is the only provider that i know of that has itunes capable phones. really no suprise here. this is why when my dog ate my ericson t637 i just got a $50 referb and held off on buying a new phone. telepod is going to be great!
rychencop
Jan 1, 07:57 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
i agree...until there is a credible threat created, i will not lose a second of sleep.
Josias
Aug 28, 12:26 PM
God I want a 15" Merom MBP, but I need to get rid of my MB first, and I want iLife '07 in them. I can't wait for Leopard. Please Steve, read it...:D
deakinng
Apr 22, 02:06 AM
i don't understand, is like end up we have to use more data and pay more, and not convenience for iPod touch user who only got wifi, what so good about this?:confused::confused::confused::confused:
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 02:11 PM
Sorry, but I think you are taking the settlement at face value and making just a surface interpretation.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
There are already several industry analysts who have now gone on record saying this is a win for Apple.
$100 million may be a big load of money for you, me and Creative, but it's chump change when we're talking about the fact that iPod makes $6+ BILLION PER YEAR (and growing) for Apple.
It's like Creative accused Apple of stealing the goose that lays golden eggs. In return, Apple gives Creative one of the eggs and Creative goes, "Wow! Thanks! You can keep the goose!"
The face-value interpretation says that Creative won because it was a pauper who now has a golden egg that's worth a lot of money. The deep interpretation is that Apple still has the goose and Creative just gave up all claims of ownership over it.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing, but it's also not very accurate.
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
JGowan
Sep 5, 05:14 PM
I've seen some posts about transferring "that much data" in disbelief. I calculate that a two hour movie will no more about 450MB. I hope it is, of course. This is based on a 1-hr episode of Lost is about 200MB. I fudge in 50MB for the fact that each Lost episode never is EXACTLY 1 hour.
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
I can transfer that size (450MB) from my ReplayTV wirelessly to my PowerBook in less than a half hour with my Airport Extreme Basestation.
So... I see no problem. Perhaps the show will be delayed a little but not more than a few minutes
FuNGi
Apr 25, 12:53 PM
I like the current iteration sans the glass. What would really interest me would be a transition to liquidmetal allowing for a lighter and stronger case. I'm sure many will speculate an end to the CD/DVD drive with this one but I wouldn't be so sure.
gnasher729
Mar 30, 01:23 PM
You would not have said "What on earth is an app store?". You would have said "Where is it?" because you would have known it is a place that sells apps/applications. Why? Because it is descriptive. And that is the point of the argument.
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Applications are a type of program. They have been called so since the dawn of time.
When you take some facial cream and put it on your face, that is called "application". When you take some abstract idea and turn it into practice, that is called "application". When you fill out a form to get a passport, that is called "application". "application" is a word with many meanings.
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Applications are a type of program. They have been called so since the dawn of time.
When you take some facial cream and put it on your face, that is called "application". When you take some abstract idea and turn it into practice, that is called "application". When you fill out a form to get a passport, that is called "application". "application" is a word with many meanings.
Kingsly
Oct 28, 02:28 AM
"Crushing all dissent" except for right here in the Macrumors forums. The only free place left in our Fascist dictatorship country where we can't roam the streets after curfew and cellular phones and other internet resources have been shut down. Hail Macrumors for fighting the oppression and risking life and limb so other freedom fighters like "Jobsrules" can dissent against President Bush in the only venue still open after all other forms of protest ceased after the 2000 election...
By the way, I am not sure if you've noticed or not, but their actually still are protests in the United States. It's a basic Right that hasn't been taken away under the Bush administration. We have freedom of the press, who largely dislike the President: e.i. Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Wolf Blitzer...
We have freedom of speech, albeit, apparently only here in the Macforums, we have freedom to 'peaceably' assemble, as stated in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, right to keep and bare arms... We don't have soldiers quartering in homes... we don't yet have to testify against ourselves in a court of law.
I guess I'm at a loss for what rights we have actually lost under the Bush Presidency... Not to mention what on earth it has to do with Greenpeace have trouble agreeing and adhering to rules and standards of conduct.
I rest my, er... your case! :)
By the way, I am not sure if you've noticed or not, but their actually still are protests in the United States. It's a basic Right that hasn't been taken away under the Bush administration. We have freedom of the press, who largely dislike the President: e.i. Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, Wolf Blitzer...
We have freedom of speech, albeit, apparently only here in the Macforums, we have freedom to 'peaceably' assemble, as stated in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion, right to keep and bare arms... We don't have soldiers quartering in homes... we don't yet have to testify against ourselves in a court of law.
I guess I'm at a loss for what rights we have actually lost under the Bush Presidency... Not to mention what on earth it has to do with Greenpeace have trouble agreeing and adhering to rules and standards of conduct.
I rest my, er... your case! :)
scottgroovez
Apr 25, 02:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
Those who don't want the superdrive have the option of an air. People in the music industry will always have a use for CD's. I just think no superdrive makes it an air varient not a pro.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
Those who don't want the superdrive have the option of an air. People in the music industry will always have a use for CD's. I just think no superdrive makes it an air varient not a pro.
epitaphic
Sep 11, 05:48 AM
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/09/11/four_cores_on_the_rampage_uk/index.html
For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.
Seems like things bode well for Clovertown. Fingers crossed the hideously inefficient FB-DIMMS dont screw it up.
For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.
Seems like things bode well for Clovertown. Fingers crossed the hideously inefficient FB-DIMMS dont screw it up.