iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 04:48 PM
It's totally 'legal', so if you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't stop others from doing so.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 03:53 PM
Well traded the Subaru today time to get something a bit more sensible so i got a 2007 Ford Focus ST-2.
Done all the paper work today and pick her up tomorrow afternoon, cant wait.
MattNow if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
Done all the paper work today and pick her up tomorrow afternoon, cant wait.
MattNow if I were in England and I was getting a Ford Focus, I think it would have to be a RS. :D
We don't get to play with those on our side of the pond. :(
Tmelon
Apr 6, 04:35 PM
I'm having major crashing problems with Lion. When editing a video in iMovie and converting it to HD it will crash right before finishing, same with editing an audio clip in Quicktime.
cmaier
Apr 2, 07:36 PM
this commercial makes ipad seemed like it's only for kids.
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
A lot of kids you know looking at CAT scans?
twoodcc
Dec 2, 06:51 PM
^ depressing but true. desktop computer hardware taking a back seat to iphones :( sad day
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
well apple isn't showing up to macworld anymore, right?
having been to CES, it's about 100x cooler than macworld i must say. it may just be the perfect forum to drum up more business
well apple isn't showing up to macworld anymore, right?
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 07:26 PM
That's funny. Your description lists every apple product you own except the iPad 2 :o
good point, he doesn't have an ipad he is just trolling.
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
good point, he doesn't have an ipad he is just trolling.
people don't understand that if 1,000 ipads have a problem with backlight bleeding, thats still only .01% of ipad 2s Sold.
And apple will replace any ipad with backlight bleeding
DannyBres
Nov 24, 03:46 AM
Not really, The reason I spent the money on Oakleys is because from what I've read and seen, Oakley's are tough and will last you years. But also if I travel and don't wish to wear them I want to put them somewhere where they will not be crushed, or drowned, or broken.
I'm also planning on going into the Coast Guard, So if/when I travel or etc, I want to take great care of my equipment & personal belongings.
I got that size because it was the smallest water proof size, I also plan on getting another pair someday.
When I spend $200.00 on a pair of sunglasses, When they are not on my head, I want them put away.
Sorry why do you need to keep then dry?! I'm sure they will get wet if you are a coast guard! and how much was that case?
My last purchase was...........
http://www.thegoodride.com/images/stories/2011/burton-boots/moto/burton-moto-brown.jpg
I'm also planning on going into the Coast Guard, So if/when I travel or etc, I want to take great care of my equipment & personal belongings.
I got that size because it was the smallest water proof size, I also plan on getting another pair someday.
When I spend $200.00 on a pair of sunglasses, When they are not on my head, I want them put away.
Sorry why do you need to keep then dry?! I'm sure they will get wet if you are a coast guard! and how much was that case?
My last purchase was...........
http://www.thegoodride.com/images/stories/2011/burton-boots/moto/burton-moto-brown.jpg
CIA
Apr 13, 01:11 AM
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
I second this.
I second this.
Mulyahnto
Oct 23, 09:32 AM
MacGadget.de who?
GeekOFComedy
Nov 24, 09:54 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
Josias
Aug 7, 03:32 AM
Anyone got any ideas of when the keynote starts in the good ol UK?, i'm guessing 6pm ish?
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
It's starting 7 pm in Denmark, but I can tell you, the minute I post this, there is 8 hours and 27 minutes till the Keynote...:D
hunkaburningluv
Mar 26, 08:18 PM
You clearly lack any sort of vision. You couldn't be more wrong about the future of gaming.
that's awfully nice of you.
Methinks you need yo get your head out of the clouds when it comes to hardcore gaming.
I'll agree that the future of casual games may be going in this direction, but core gamers will use this to supplement their gaming.
Come back when you can play gears, modern warfare or Uncharted and have the same or better tactile experience and I'll gladly eat my own words. Until then it's all a pipe dream.
You need a real dose of reality.
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Not exactly true:
PS3 games running in 1080p
Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA)
GT5 Prologue (demo) = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance = 1280x720 & 1920x1080 (no AA)
MLB09: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) or 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA
Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel = 1280x720 when sub-HD output selected, 1920x1080 for any HD output (no AA)
Virtua Tennis 3 = 1920x1080 (2x AA)
World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA)
there's probably a few more for the 360 - BUT, IMO resolution isn't the be all and end all of visuals, take the uncharted series, it isn't 1080p, but it's spectacular looking where as Sacred 2 looks like crap.
If Kinect wasn't the run away success it was, then yeah, I would have expected some announcement this or next e3 for the 360, but it looks like the Wii 2 will probably be announced first.
The PS3 will probably have some legs actually, as people get more and more used to the developer tools (as they are now) then we'll see more and more impressive titles graphically.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
you make a good point, but to really excel at gaming, you can't have a jack of all trades device - look at the PSP for instance- great wee machine, but it was far too spread, functionality wise to be a great success. For this device to appeal to the core gamer it needs to be designed specifically for core gaming, as it is the now (and there's nothing wrong with it this way) it's for casual gamers or 'pick up for 5 mins' kinda games
that's awfully nice of you.
Methinks you need yo get your head out of the clouds when it comes to hardcore gaming.
I'll agree that the future of casual games may be going in this direction, but core gamers will use this to supplement their gaming.
Come back when you can play gears, modern warfare or Uncharted and have the same or better tactile experience and I'll gladly eat my own words. Until then it's all a pipe dream.
You need a real dose of reality.
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Not exactly true:
PS3 games running in 1080p
Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA)
GT5 Prologue (demo) = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance = 1280x720 & 1920x1080 (no AA)
MLB09: The Show = 1280x720 (2xAA) or 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA
Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA)
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel = 1280x720 when sub-HD output selected, 1920x1080 for any HD output (no AA)
Virtua Tennis 3 = 1920x1080 (2x AA)
World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA)
there's probably a few more for the 360 - BUT, IMO resolution isn't the be all and end all of visuals, take the uncharted series, it isn't 1080p, but it's spectacular looking where as Sacred 2 looks like crap.
If Kinect wasn't the run away success it was, then yeah, I would have expected some announcement this or next e3 for the 360, but it looks like the Wii 2 will probably be announced first.
The PS3 will probably have some legs actually, as people get more and more used to the developer tools (as they are now) then we'll see more and more impressive titles graphically.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
you make a good point, but to really excel at gaming, you can't have a jack of all trades device - look at the PSP for instance- great wee machine, but it was far too spread, functionality wise to be a great success. For this device to appeal to the core gamer it needs to be designed specifically for core gaming, as it is the now (and there's nothing wrong with it this way) it's for casual gamers or 'pick up for 5 mins' kinda games
MacMan86
Apr 23, 12:56 PM
An undocumented source proves your point, but Apple makes no reply to the allegations? I thought it was a "bug" in the software? And some police departments have known about it for a while too.
Who needs an undocumented source when you could watch WWDC 2010 Session 115 'Using Core Location in iOS 4' at 14 minutes and 30 seconds in and hear Morgan Grainger, a man partly responsible for the Core Location framework in the iPhone SDK (read: all location functionality on iPhone) describe how the iPhone caches nearby cell tower information to help the device find its location in the circumstances above.
Given that we have the engineer partly behind this framework explain that the iPhone caches this information, we know that the iPhone has to be storing this information somewhere. This 'consolidated.db' matches the words in the video perfectly, making it no great assumption that this is the file which fulfils this purpose.
Granted you don't sound like a developer and so won't have access to these videos, but any other developer could do the same and corroborate this.
It being a bug is simply a rumour which has no links to an official source. I'm far more inclined to believe the words of a guy who wrote the code that collects this information in the first place
Who needs an undocumented source when you could watch WWDC 2010 Session 115 'Using Core Location in iOS 4' at 14 minutes and 30 seconds in and hear Morgan Grainger, a man partly responsible for the Core Location framework in the iPhone SDK (read: all location functionality on iPhone) describe how the iPhone caches nearby cell tower information to help the device find its location in the circumstances above.
Given that we have the engineer partly behind this framework explain that the iPhone caches this information, we know that the iPhone has to be storing this information somewhere. This 'consolidated.db' matches the words in the video perfectly, making it no great assumption that this is the file which fulfils this purpose.
Granted you don't sound like a developer and so won't have access to these videos, but any other developer could do the same and corroborate this.
It being a bug is simply a rumour which has no links to an official source. I'm far more inclined to believe the words of a guy who wrote the code that collects this information in the first place
Flowbee
Nov 29, 01:56 PM
...And I just got my new dual-tuner Tivo yesterday. :o
Anyway, I'm not betting that "iTV" will be a Tivo repalcement (yet), but more of a TV interface for your downloaded video content, and hopefully some streaming video websites. It'd be nice to browse through YouTube while sitting on the sofa, though the picture quality might be scary on my 32" set.
Anyway, I'm not betting that "iTV" will be a Tivo repalcement (yet), but more of a TV interface for your downloaded video content, and hopefully some streaming video websites. It'd be nice to browse through YouTube while sitting on the sofa, though the picture quality might be scary on my 32" set.
peharri
Jan 1, 06:30 PM
....Steve gets another call 5 mintues later...
...pulls out iPhone
...geeks bumrush the stage and carry Steve off on their shoulders
I find it hard to believe they'll get that excited about a Cisco Wifi phone, especially if a Motorola iTunes phone doesn't do the job...
I guess we'll see more of Leopard.
We might see more of iTV. I think, contrary to what some insist upon here, that iTV will be a standalone box, requiring no additional Mac to work. There's little point in it having storage if it isn't going to be, and a consumer device requiring a computer is something I think Apple wants to get away from. At the same time, what I've seen so far is Apple seperating the media business from the computer business, and wouldn't be surprised if they actually avoid showing iTV (and iPod enhancements) at MWSF.
iPod Phone (or whatever it's called) is a no-no. I'm not ruling out it being a future Apple product, there's too much evidence it exists, I just doubt it'll be there for MWSF, both because it's not a Mac (see above comment) and because I think they'd do an actual keynote. And, as always, for Apple's sake, I hope the rumour is complete rubbish.
iLife - why, yes. Even better would be improvements to iWork, notable some of the missing components added. Apple lacks an office suite. iWork is not an office suite, and Mac enthusiasts do everyone no favours by pretending it is. If Apple are unwilling to complete iWork, they could throw their weight behind NeoOffice.
I really love the game console rumour. It sounds completely made up to me, but now would be a great time to introduce something, even if it's just a low cost Mac mini in practice. The Playstation 3 is a disaster. The Xbox 360 isn't selling in anything like the numbers Microsoft hoped. The only console that's actually moving at the moment is the Wii, and the low power of the thing means it might only have a year of marketability in it. If ever there was a time for Apple to jump into the market, it would be now. But that said, I seriously doubt they will.
...pulls out iPhone
...geeks bumrush the stage and carry Steve off on their shoulders
I find it hard to believe they'll get that excited about a Cisco Wifi phone, especially if a Motorola iTunes phone doesn't do the job...
I guess we'll see more of Leopard.
We might see more of iTV. I think, contrary to what some insist upon here, that iTV will be a standalone box, requiring no additional Mac to work. There's little point in it having storage if it isn't going to be, and a consumer device requiring a computer is something I think Apple wants to get away from. At the same time, what I've seen so far is Apple seperating the media business from the computer business, and wouldn't be surprised if they actually avoid showing iTV (and iPod enhancements) at MWSF.
iPod Phone (or whatever it's called) is a no-no. I'm not ruling out it being a future Apple product, there's too much evidence it exists, I just doubt it'll be there for MWSF, both because it's not a Mac (see above comment) and because I think they'd do an actual keynote. And, as always, for Apple's sake, I hope the rumour is complete rubbish.
iLife - why, yes. Even better would be improvements to iWork, notable some of the missing components added. Apple lacks an office suite. iWork is not an office suite, and Mac enthusiasts do everyone no favours by pretending it is. If Apple are unwilling to complete iWork, they could throw their weight behind NeoOffice.
I really love the game console rumour. It sounds completely made up to me, but now would be a great time to introduce something, even if it's just a low cost Mac mini in practice. The Playstation 3 is a disaster. The Xbox 360 isn't selling in anything like the numbers Microsoft hoped. The only console that's actually moving at the moment is the Wii, and the low power of the thing means it might only have a year of marketability in it. If ever there was a time for Apple to jump into the market, it would be now. But that said, I seriously doubt they will.
MagnusVonMagnum
Sep 21, 04:32 PM
Who. freaking. cares.
Honestly, people are so worried about the principle of the matter (I shouldn't have to use a case! I shouldn't have to change how I hold it!) that they've completely missed whether it actually really makes for a worse experience. For me, it absolutely does not.
I also still don't get how CR can give it the highest overall rating and not recommend it.
I don't get how people can get so freaking upset over what CR has to say one way or the other. I mean they come into this thread saying they don't care, but they must to waste their time telling everyone else how much they don't care. :eek:
Honestly, people are so worried about the principle of the matter (I shouldn't have to use a case! I shouldn't have to change how I hold it!) that they've completely missed whether it actually really makes for a worse experience. For me, it absolutely does not.
I also still don't get how CR can give it the highest overall rating and not recommend it.
I don't get how people can get so freaking upset over what CR has to say one way or the other. I mean they come into this thread saying they don't care, but they must to waste their time telling everyone else how much they don't care. :eek:
twoodcc
Aug 29, 10:15 AM
UPDATE:
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
wow, now that would be something
It looks like the GMA X3000 is ready to go now, but a Yonah coupled with a X3000 IGP would still make the Mini a great machine.
wow, now that would be something
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
AppliedVisual
Nov 15, 06:10 PM
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Yes, yes, all true... Somewhat. True in the sense of how a lot of programmers approach current threading problems and various development theories. And we're currently limited by our development tools and the operating systems to a certain degree.
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
Yes, but so many things behave differently from one platform to another. How is writing a low-level thread management system for each platform different than writing the core functions of a 3D graphics engine that can run cross-platform and take advantage of various differences or feature - OpenGL, Direct3D, 3DNow, etc.. Cross-platform development always has its issues as do using different development tools. You obviously know this as do many programmers, so what's the point of the doom and gloom? It's always been this way and is just a part of the development process.
Massively multithreaded apps do exist and have been written for various platforms over the years. Here in Windows and OSX land programmers go into panic mode when multithreading is mentioned. Yet SGI had Irix scaled to 256 CPUs and visulization apps utilizing multithreading on individual systems as well as across cluster nodes and displaying images built by multiple graphics pipes using multithreaded OpenGL that could scale from 1 to 16 graphics pipes and any number of CPUs.
Anyway, my whole point is that the software industry will eventually have to tackle this problem head on and will overcome it. I just don't understand the current resistance and denial exhibited by so many "developers". The hardware is coming, in many situations it's already here... Why fight it? It's time to look at threads in a new light (for many). Upcoming CPU roadmaps place newer quad-core chips in the market in mid '07 with common Xeon and Opteron workstations/servers moving to quad-CPU (16-core) with 45nm process and lower wattage. 8-core CPUs to arrive in '08, 12 and 16 cores per CPU in late '08 or early '09...
MHz isn't increasing and the consumer still wants the next version of their game or video editor to run twice as fast with more features on the new stystem they just bought, which now has 32 cores instead of 18 cores and they'll switch to a competitor's product if you take more than two or three months to ship your software update... What do you do?
Yes, yes, all true... Somewhat. True in the sense of how a lot of programmers approach current threading problems and various development theories. And we're currently limited by our development tools and the operating systems to a certain degree.
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
Yes, but so many things behave differently from one platform to another. How is writing a low-level thread management system for each platform different than writing the core functions of a 3D graphics engine that can run cross-platform and take advantage of various differences or feature - OpenGL, Direct3D, 3DNow, etc.. Cross-platform development always has its issues as do using different development tools. You obviously know this as do many programmers, so what's the point of the doom and gloom? It's always been this way and is just a part of the development process.
Massively multithreaded apps do exist and have been written for various platforms over the years. Here in Windows and OSX land programmers go into panic mode when multithreading is mentioned. Yet SGI had Irix scaled to 256 CPUs and visulization apps utilizing multithreading on individual systems as well as across cluster nodes and displaying images built by multiple graphics pipes using multithreaded OpenGL that could scale from 1 to 16 graphics pipes and any number of CPUs.
Anyway, my whole point is that the software industry will eventually have to tackle this problem head on and will overcome it. I just don't understand the current resistance and denial exhibited by so many "developers". The hardware is coming, in many situations it's already here... Why fight it? It's time to look at threads in a new light (for many). Upcoming CPU roadmaps place newer quad-core chips in the market in mid '07 with common Xeon and Opteron workstations/servers moving to quad-CPU (16-core) with 45nm process and lower wattage. 8-core CPUs to arrive in '08, 12 and 16 cores per CPU in late '08 or early '09...
MHz isn't increasing and the consumer still wants the next version of their game or video editor to run twice as fast with more features on the new stystem they just bought, which now has 32 cores instead of 18 cores and they'll switch to a competitor's product if you take more than two or three months to ship your software update... What do you do?
kalisphoenix
Jan 1, 09:14 PM
Looks to me like another post by Fake Steve
(http://www.fakesteve.blogspot.com)
Heh... kinda lacks the Zen aura, though. Not that Steve's very Zen.
I had a similar thing back in my misspent youth, 4-5 years ago. A fake George Bush on Livejournal. I got bored though and quit because all the girls who friended me and wanted to have my baby were really tubby.
(http://www.fakesteve.blogspot.com)
Heh... kinda lacks the Zen aura, though. Not that Steve's very Zen.
I had a similar thing back in my misspent youth, 4-5 years ago. A fake George Bush on Livejournal. I got bored though and quit because all the girls who friended me and wanted to have my baby were really tubby.
ghostface147
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Can it run crysis 2?
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 11:31 AM
I just saw this and though it was pretty interesting:
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
Sony also introduced their own small-format 90.0 � 94.0 mm disk, similar to the others but somewhat simpler in construction than the AmDisk. The first computer to use this format was the HP-150 of 1983, and Sony also used them fairly widely on their line of MSX computers. Other than this the format suffered from a similar fate as the other new formats; the 5�-inch format simply had too much market share. Things changed dramatically in 1984 when Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers. By 1989 the 3�-inch was outselling the 5�-inch.
Here is the source:
Sony's 3.5" Floppy Disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppy_drive#The_3.C2.BD-inch_microfloppy_diskette)
Yeah, but wasn't that also when Apple had something like 50% of the consumer market share. I mean... I think its a very different situation even if its the same names.
swingerofbirch
Aug 24, 07:09 PM
Maybe Apple is planning to take the world by storm and make a TV top Mac Mini loss leader with Blue Ray ( a la PS3!) :)
lordonuthin
May 4, 07:14 PM
interesting. well i might get a mac pro someday. my homebuilt machine is a big hassle and i'm not there to work on it. i would rather have a computer that i can fold and use regularly
Building your own is fun but can be a real pain sometimes, especially if you use Linux :eek:
Building your own is fun but can be a real pain sometimes, especially if you use Linux :eek: