Query
Aug 6, 09:27 PM
"Hasta la Vista, Vista" image on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241970&context=photostream&size=l
:D
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=207241970&context=photostream&size=l
:D
backsidetailsli
Nov 24, 07:31 AM
add Shnitzlizr lets race!
http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/gt5rd.jpg
http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/gt5rd.jpg
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
minnesotamacman
Sep 1, 03:29 PM
http://static.flickr.com/95/231249512_9eccfef387_o.jpg
I had to quickly get the drool off of the keyboard before I could type... But hotdiggetydog if the 23" looked like this I would have an order in as soon as the store was back online...
Here is to hoping!
I had to quickly get the drool off of the keyboard before I could type... But hotdiggetydog if the 23" looked like this I would have an order in as soon as the store was back online...
Here is to hoping!
aLoC
Nov 17, 10:30 AM
I currently have a 24" iMac and am very happy with it.
Will consider a Mac Pro if it gets 8 cores and they drop the FB-DIMMs. Don't want FB-DIMMs, they have the definite feel of an overcomplicated solution to a problem.
Will consider a Mac Pro if it gets 8 cores and they drop the FB-DIMMs. Don't want FB-DIMMs, they have the definite feel of an overcomplicated solution to a problem.
zwida
Sep 6, 08:42 PM
What planet are you on?
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
I don't know, but I think I'm going to plan for an early retirement there...:)
steviem
Apr 10, 07:40 AM
Conventional torque converter auto's still sap more power and fuel than sticks. But, with DCT's entering the market, the advantage of the manual transmission went out the window.
That has killed interest for me at least for a stick. Unless you like rowing your own gears, DCT's are the way to go. They can get the same or better in performance and fuel economy.
Well, the weight advantage of a manual transmission is still there. Although in sports cars, sequential gearboxes are best.
Cars seem to have grown to be huge since the 80s. Look at a BMW 3 series from the late 80s compared with a modern 3 series now. That new 3 series is the size of a 5 series and the 1 series is just about the same size as an old 3 series.
I love manual transmission, my first two cars didn't even have PAS, power steering or ABS, the first car was a pile of crap, but the 205 GTi was so nice and quick that it didn't need any electronics in it.
When I move to the US though, I will probably be driving an Automatic, it will be simply something to get me from A to B. Rather than over here when I drive around lovely B (country) roads to get to places and a manual gearboxes are just more fun on twisty roads.
Once I can afford it though, I'd like to find a classic car to restore, maybe an MG or something, just to keep some quintessential Englishness in my life!
That has killed interest for me at least for a stick. Unless you like rowing your own gears, DCT's are the way to go. They can get the same or better in performance and fuel economy.
Well, the weight advantage of a manual transmission is still there. Although in sports cars, sequential gearboxes are best.
Cars seem to have grown to be huge since the 80s. Look at a BMW 3 series from the late 80s compared with a modern 3 series now. That new 3 series is the size of a 5 series and the 1 series is just about the same size as an old 3 series.
I love manual transmission, my first two cars didn't even have PAS, power steering or ABS, the first car was a pile of crap, but the 205 GTi was so nice and quick that it didn't need any electronics in it.
When I move to the US though, I will probably be driving an Automatic, it will be simply something to get me from A to B. Rather than over here when I drive around lovely B (country) roads to get to places and a manual gearboxes are just more fun on twisty roads.
Once I can afford it though, I'd like to find a classic car to restore, maybe an MG or something, just to keep some quintessential Englishness in my life!
drkstar
Nov 29, 02:54 PM
According to Bob Cringley:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060922_000979.html
"Now what about that USB port on the back of each iTV box? Giving his tour of the gizmo last week, Jobs rushed right past the USB port. What could that port be for? It's not for a USB hard drive, that's for sure, because the key brain in this system is back in your Mac or PC and its very large hard drive. Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. The USB port is clearly intended for an Apple iSight camera, a webcam to go with your HDTV."
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_20060922_000979.html
"Now what about that USB port on the back of each iTV box? Giving his tour of the gizmo last week, Jobs rushed right past the USB port. What could that port be for? It's not for a USB hard drive, that's for sure, because the key brain in this system is back in your Mac or PC and its very large hard drive. Nor will Apple (immediately) enable the iTV to act as a digital video recorder, because that might step on TV network toes before Apple is ready to do so. The USB port is clearly intended for an Apple iSight camera, a webcam to go with your HDTV."
popelife
Jan 3, 08:07 PM
I guess a 14�� laptop with a decent word processor is too much to ask for?
What's wrong with a MacBook and:
a) Pages
or
b) MS Word (yuck... but ymmv)
or
c) Framemaker in Boot Camp
?
Agreed, the world of word processing isn't overrun with great apps. Times change, and word processing just isn't sexy any more... even though there are plenty of theses and books and magazine articles still being written.
(I notice that MS are preparing to give away updates to Office 2007 - and Vista - to anyone that got Office pre-installed on their PC. Talk about abusing their monopoly... No struggling WP developer can hope to survive against those sort of tactics.)
With a bit of luck Pages 3.0 will be along next week. Hardly a keynote showstopper, but props to Apple for getting into that market at all. Pages is cute.
If you specifically need the long-doc and publishing features of Framemaker, then it's Windows time. Sad but true. Take it up with Adobe.
What's wrong with a MacBook and:
a) Pages
or
b) MS Word (yuck... but ymmv)
or
c) Framemaker in Boot Camp
?
Agreed, the world of word processing isn't overrun with great apps. Times change, and word processing just isn't sexy any more... even though there are plenty of theses and books and magazine articles still being written.
(I notice that MS are preparing to give away updates to Office 2007 - and Vista - to anyone that got Office pre-installed on their PC. Talk about abusing their monopoly... No struggling WP developer can hope to survive against those sort of tactics.)
With a bit of luck Pages 3.0 will be along next week. Hardly a keynote showstopper, but props to Apple for getting into that market at all. Pages is cute.
If you specifically need the long-doc and publishing features of Framemaker, then it's Windows time. Sad but true. Take it up with Adobe.
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 03:35 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
gnasher729
Apr 3, 12:20 PM
Great ad. When they can't compete on specs Apple should try to use fuzzy math (sorry, logic) to convince people that there is more to their products. That's the only way for Apple to keep the profit margin.
You may not have noticed that, but what you call "specs" are not the specs that are important to Apple, and not the specs that are important to people. I've heard the term "measurbators" used in photography for people who are interested in the specs of cameras, instead of being interested in making photos. Apple doesn't build the iPad for people who look for specs, but for people who want to do stuff with a tablet and enjoy it.
You may not have noticed that, but what you call "specs" are not the specs that are important to Apple, and not the specs that are important to people. I've heard the term "measurbators" used in photography for people who are interested in the specs of cameras, instead of being interested in making photos. Apple doesn't build the iPad for people who look for specs, but for people who want to do stuff with a tablet and enjoy it.
wheezy
Nov 15, 06:37 PM
That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.
On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.
Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.
So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.
Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.
What a very lovely analogy. Thank you.
For me... 8 cores for the bragging rights only... so I guess I won't get one anytime soon. I'm sure 4 would suit me fine though, I need to upgrade my 1Ghz G4!!!
aswitcher
Aug 7, 03:04 AM
Any Aussies staying up? I think i will have to.
Why can't Steve do his Keynote at like 4pm over in the US, that we'd be able to wake up at 9. Anyways! As long as he has a big sleigh i don't care
I'll be up at 2am-ish for the keynote histeria.
Why can't Steve do his Keynote at like 4pm over in the US, that we'd be able to wake up at 9. Anyways! As long as he has a big sleigh i don't care
I'll be up at 2am-ish for the keynote histeria.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 2, 07:53 PM
Of the 4 in my family, none of these issues exists. Try again?
No problems here either. I love my new iPad 2. (black, 64 gb, ATT.)
No problems here either. I love my new iPad 2. (black, 64 gb, ATT.)
jxyama
Mar 19, 05:17 PM
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
OdduWon
Jan 1, 09:33 PM
i hope this year apple takes a wider stance on how they support the artists used in there iTMS collection. More web links and a way of getting straight to their upcoming show list would be a nice start, as some were lost when iT 7 came out.
With iTv you could have a "front row" seat for live streamed concerts and events. This would be like pay-per view but with a apple tie in.
And if you had a camera setup YOU could be the event. A sort of iCast ;)
With iTv you could have a "front row" seat for live streamed concerts and events. This would be like pay-per view but with a apple tie in.
And if you had a camera setup YOU could be the event. A sort of iCast ;)
indiekiduk
Aug 24, 08:27 PM
Is the intel tiger server edition available now?
ottoworks
Nov 28, 11:24 AM
I've been watching Zune slip in the Amazon rankings for days. It's been a steady decline, and as of now it's 97th in Electronics. A few more hours, and, perhaps: bye bye!
Cheers,
Otto
Cheers,
Otto
mi5moav
Jul 18, 08:19 AM
I actually prefer the rental method. I have so many movies I've bought over the years and on average I've watched them maybe 3 or 4 times. Yes, some I've actually watched 5 or 6 but alot of those now are shown on Network, and with HD tv and tivo I won't buy any new ones. But we still rent(for free, from our library) anywhere between 6 to 8 movies a week. So, if the new itunes video store can rent rent movies at .99 cents for a 3-5 day unlimited viewing I'm in. At 1.99 I might rent a few at 2.99 I really doubt it. at 4.99 no way in hell.
I still don't understand how QT is capable of doing this since Apple hasn't really implemented any kind of DRM into there players(fairplay, is a joke)
I still don't understand how QT is capable of doing this since Apple hasn't really implemented any kind of DRM into there players(fairplay, is a joke)
extrafuzzyllama
Sep 30, 12:27 PM
Yes, I've bought a clear (smoked) tpu case on eBay. Stay away from the clear ones, they leave watermarks on the back. Get the patterned ones. Fitment is kind of loose on some sides but good temp case until something good comes out. I'm waiting on the incase slider myself, just wish it didn't cost 35 bucks for a piece of plastic!
what do u mean watermarks? do u have a pic?
i was also considering buying from the ebay seller ashophone
the clear gel cases
anyone seen any cases like the grip vue solid colors on ebay?
http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/ashopone/Ipod-touch4-Soft-8x1.jpg
what do u mean watermarks? do u have a pic?
i was also considering buying from the ebay seller ashophone
the clear gel cases
anyone seen any cases like the grip vue solid colors on ebay?
http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/ashopone/Ipod-touch4-Soft-8x1.jpg
jgould
Feb 23, 11:38 AM
iMark,
Nice and clean. I love simple setups.
Nice and clean. I love simple setups.
Edge100
Sep 1, 02:28 PM
Like the iPod video phone w/ Merom?
G5 Powerbook next week!!!!!!!
G5 Powerbook next week!!!!!!!
0815
Apr 19, 11:43 AM
Just in time - I just decided yesterday that it is time to replace my first generation Intel iMac. I hope they have a 500GB SSD option for the update (the current option of 256 GB SSD is too small and you cant even order them with two 256GB SSDs). Thunderbold would also be nice (no need for it right away, but I guess in a year or two I will be happy to have one)
milo
Sep 6, 08:47 AM
I'm mixed to disappointed on this one.
The solo to duo upgrade on the low end is nice, but I would rather have seen a price drop.
On the high end, that's barely an upgrade at all. Before, the high end model was way more appealing, after the upgrade the high end model is really unappealing compared with the macbook and the iMac.
The solo to duo upgrade on the low end is nice, but I would rather have seen a price drop.
On the high end, that's barely an upgrade at all. Before, the high end model was way more appealing, after the upgrade the high end model is really unappealing compared with the macbook and the iMac.
0 comments:
Post a Comment