BRLawyer
Aug 26, 11:33 AM
Gee, you'd want to be damn sure of that announcement next Tuesday or risk looking like a complete idiot. We shall soon see..
Mr. Shaw is pronouncing this since late 2005...so no surprises here... :rolleyes:
Mr. Shaw is pronouncing this since late 2005...so no surprises here... :rolleyes:
DStaal
Sep 7, 11:34 AM
On the rental vs. purchase argument...
I'm not going to touch which one is 'better' for videos at the moment. I have opinions, but nevermind.
Let's work on the technolocial aspects for a moment, shall we?
Rental requires working DRM. Period. Absolutely. Otherwise there is no way for it to be just rental: you have the file, you can watch it whenever.
Purchase doesn't. You get the file, you can use forever, because you own it.
There is no unbreakable DRM scheme. It doesn't exist today, it probably never will. This is because you, the consumer, are required to be able to decrypt the files sometimes but not others. Which means you have all the info needed to decrypt it. Which means, sooner or later, that someone will figure out how to access that info when they want to, not when the software wants to.
So, Apple requiring a purchase model is just recognizing the limitations of the technology. They have nothing they can 'take back' at the end of a rental period, and it is no cheaper (it's actually more expensive) for them to rent something to you.
There is an apparent temporary advantage to the rental model to the movie studios, since they can charge you multiple times for the same movie. It costs Apple just as much to 'rent' you a movie or sell it to you, so Apple has no advantage, and you get the same file either way.
If you don't want to keep it, just throw it out. Same difference. The rest is pricing games.
I'm not going to touch which one is 'better' for videos at the moment. I have opinions, but nevermind.
Let's work on the technolocial aspects for a moment, shall we?
Rental requires working DRM. Period. Absolutely. Otherwise there is no way for it to be just rental: you have the file, you can watch it whenever.
Purchase doesn't. You get the file, you can use forever, because you own it.
There is no unbreakable DRM scheme. It doesn't exist today, it probably never will. This is because you, the consumer, are required to be able to decrypt the files sometimes but not others. Which means you have all the info needed to decrypt it. Which means, sooner or later, that someone will figure out how to access that info when they want to, not when the software wants to.
So, Apple requiring a purchase model is just recognizing the limitations of the technology. They have nothing they can 'take back' at the end of a rental period, and it is no cheaper (it's actually more expensive) for them to rent something to you.
There is an apparent temporary advantage to the rental model to the movie studios, since they can charge you multiple times for the same movie. It costs Apple just as much to 'rent' you a movie or sell it to you, so Apple has no advantage, and you get the same file either way.
If you don't want to keep it, just throw it out. Same difference. The rest is pricing games.
williwilli
Aug 7, 02:49 AM
here's my assesment of the situation; a complete and reasonable roundup of what to expect at the show
http://www.sejus.com/earth2willi/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1184
http://www.sejus.com/earth2willi/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1184
goobot
Apr 2, 09:13 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 6, 08:56 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
generik
Oct 14, 07:03 PM
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
Ingot
Apr 19, 11:16 AM
What is this world coming to when quotes are coming from Brian Tong???
Last month, CNET's Brian Tong claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/) to have received information from a source indicating that updated iMacs should debut by the end of April or the first week in May, a window of time that is just now set to open.
Last month, CNET's Brian Tong claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/22/potential-imac-update-to-sandy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-in-4-6-weeks/) to have received information from a source indicating that updated iMacs should debut by the end of April or the first week in May, a window of time that is just now set to open.
trex67
Mar 23, 10:08 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I currently have 34,000+ songs in my iTunes Library, just north of 205GB. I'd buy a 220GB in a heartbeat. I realize not everyone needs that much space, but I currently have to swap out older material (usually live albums and alternate versions) whenever I get a new album (I tend to buy or rip a couple of new albums a week.) And I do indeed listen to everything on my iPod at least occasionally. New albums get a solid two or three day rotation, but most of the time I have it on shuffle. I don't consider this a problem, I just really love music, and variety is important to me.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I currently have 34,000+ songs in my iTunes Library, just north of 205GB. I'd buy a 220GB in a heartbeat. I realize not everyone needs that much space, but I currently have to swap out older material (usually live albums and alternate versions) whenever I get a new album (I tend to buy or rip a couple of new albums a week.) And I do indeed listen to everything on my iPod at least occasionally. New albums get a solid two or three day rotation, but most of the time I have it on shuffle. I don't consider this a problem, I just really love music, and variety is important to me.
mharpo
Sep 27, 02:07 PM
I canceled my subscription to CR for this very reason. How can anyone rely upon their advice? Ridiculous...
ipedro
Jan 3, 07:18 PM
I don't read too much into the Apple home page image. I think it only means that the transition to Intel is over and now Apple can concentrate on other efforts.
I think the keynote will yield few surprises. I foresee a lengthy demonstration of Leopard, giving the consumer POV, and how great it will be. Maybe a few more features will be leaked out, but probably the focus will be on the consumer-level stuff like stationary in mail.app. Also, iChat will take up a lot of time.
I think we'll see some upgrades to the MacPro line. Maybe more cores or processors or something, but what you might expect. Likely Blu-ray BTO option.
iLife will get an update, with most of the changes in iWeb, which will support multiple site construction. It will be more robust and Steve will make a couple of sites with it. iWork will see some more templates and transitions, but no spreadsheet app will be shown. They may offer further integration with iApps and address book/mail (Leopard-only)
iTV (whatever it's called) will make a minor appearance, and some more details will emerge, but other than front row integration, it won't be a big deal.
No phone of any kind will be presented. Steve will publicly quash the rumor saying that Apple has looked at the existing market and can't find a value-add there. After that, a bluetooth iPod/cell phone interface will be presented that allows your iPod to show caller ID and shut off when a call comes in. It also allows for initiating calls from the iPod address book.
iPods will get a HD bump to 100Gb & 60Gb at the same price point, Nano & Shuffles may also get larger storage, but not likely.
No wide screen iPod will be shown. Steve will say it saps too much battery life, and will point to the Zune as the example of "what not to do". Steve will note that most cars sold in the US have iPod integration and how 2007 will be a banner year for iPod integration in home & car.
A Mighty Mouse MKII will debut in both wired and BT form, with a better track ball (non-analog) and industry-leading battery life on the BT version.
I think that'll be about it.
How depressing :( ... what a pessimistic member.
Remember, this is the premier event of the year, a date Apple is working hard towards during most of the year. It's a high profile event and has become even more so in the past years.
Apple will want to make a splash and will indeed do so, at the very least with their next big device: iTV.
Mowogg doesn't seem to take into account that Steve Jobs hypes everything to the highest degree... and yes, we buy it. iTV is Apple's next big thing and I fully expect this and Leopard to be the BIG THING @ MWSF2007. This is Macworld after all.
This would point to iPods being a footnote in the keynote, but the original iPod's end of cycle status (it hasn't been updated for quite some time, by iPod standards) and the fact that Zune was released earlier, I have a feeling Steve Jobs will want to one up Microsoft in the music player department after doing so with a demonstration of Leopard in the OS department.
iPhone is iffy... I think it could wait for its own special event a month or so after MWSF... but Steve Jobs may want to reveal it when he talks about Leopard and its new orientation towards communication via iChat and the Apple Phone. I have no doubt it is in development as SONY's walkman phones are becoming increasingly popular and playing a part in pop culture just as the iPod itself did when it was new.
Apple didn't buy a communications center for nothing. Something's going on and I have a feeling we're gonna get some information about where Apple is going @ MWSF.
I think the keynote will yield few surprises. I foresee a lengthy demonstration of Leopard, giving the consumer POV, and how great it will be. Maybe a few more features will be leaked out, but probably the focus will be on the consumer-level stuff like stationary in mail.app. Also, iChat will take up a lot of time.
I think we'll see some upgrades to the MacPro line. Maybe more cores or processors or something, but what you might expect. Likely Blu-ray BTO option.
iLife will get an update, with most of the changes in iWeb, which will support multiple site construction. It will be more robust and Steve will make a couple of sites with it. iWork will see some more templates and transitions, but no spreadsheet app will be shown. They may offer further integration with iApps and address book/mail (Leopard-only)
iTV (whatever it's called) will make a minor appearance, and some more details will emerge, but other than front row integration, it won't be a big deal.
No phone of any kind will be presented. Steve will publicly quash the rumor saying that Apple has looked at the existing market and can't find a value-add there. After that, a bluetooth iPod/cell phone interface will be presented that allows your iPod to show caller ID and shut off when a call comes in. It also allows for initiating calls from the iPod address book.
iPods will get a HD bump to 100Gb & 60Gb at the same price point, Nano & Shuffles may also get larger storage, but not likely.
No wide screen iPod will be shown. Steve will say it saps too much battery life, and will point to the Zune as the example of "what not to do". Steve will note that most cars sold in the US have iPod integration and how 2007 will be a banner year for iPod integration in home & car.
A Mighty Mouse MKII will debut in both wired and BT form, with a better track ball (non-analog) and industry-leading battery life on the BT version.
I think that'll be about it.
How depressing :( ... what a pessimistic member.
Remember, this is the premier event of the year, a date Apple is working hard towards during most of the year. It's a high profile event and has become even more so in the past years.
Apple will want to make a splash and will indeed do so, at the very least with their next big device: iTV.
Mowogg doesn't seem to take into account that Steve Jobs hypes everything to the highest degree... and yes, we buy it. iTV is Apple's next big thing and I fully expect this and Leopard to be the BIG THING @ MWSF2007. This is Macworld after all.
This would point to iPods being a footnote in the keynote, but the original iPod's end of cycle status (it hasn't been updated for quite some time, by iPod standards) and the fact that Zune was released earlier, I have a feeling Steve Jobs will want to one up Microsoft in the music player department after doing so with a demonstration of Leopard in the OS department.
iPhone is iffy... I think it could wait for its own special event a month or so after MWSF... but Steve Jobs may want to reveal it when he talks about Leopard and its new orientation towards communication via iChat and the Apple Phone. I have no doubt it is in development as SONY's walkman phones are becoming increasingly popular and playing a part in pop culture just as the iPod itself did when it was new.
Apple didn't buy a communications center for nothing. Something's going on and I have a feeling we're gonna get some information about where Apple is going @ MWSF.
Random Passerby
Oct 24, 01:19 AM
I should be posting to the 'update before the holiday season' string to help it get to 4000 posts - but I was wondering at what time of day would an update happen, were it to happen?
tuna
Mar 23, 11:08 AM
Haven't manufacturers been producing 240-250GB 1.8" iPod sized hard drives for years? I though that was part of the speculation of Apple cutting off the iPod Classics: bigger and bigger hard drives had become available but Apple was no longer updating.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
What? The front page article makes it seem like the first time a 1.8" low profile hard drive with capacity over 160GB has been offered.
Prom1
Feb 27, 10:53 PM
Finishing my graphic design degree this May. The large intuos might get replaced by a cintiq very soon.
I'm half guessing you posted an Intel Atom sticker on the MBA to prevent would be thieves from thinking its really a MBA right?
I'm half guessing you posted an Intel Atom sticker on the MBA to prevent would be thieves from thinking its really a MBA right?
Veg
Feb 26, 03:45 PM
Lamp: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BCDGMG
External HDD: http://www.macally.com/EN/Product/ipod4show.asp?ArticleID=209
Speakers: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Z-3-Wood-Grained-Speakers/dp/B0000C20V3/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1298679238&sr=1-12
iPhone stand: http://www.xtand.net/xtand.html
Oh yeah and actually that's not the stand, I got the stand from monoprice.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=108&cp_id=10833&cs_id=1083113&p_id=6862&seq=1&format=2
Monoprice makes great products and sells them cheaply, I recommend them.
External HDD: http://www.macally.com/EN/Product/ipod4show.asp?ArticleID=209
Speakers: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Z-3-Wood-Grained-Speakers/dp/B0000C20V3/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1298679238&sr=1-12
iPhone stand: http://www.xtand.net/xtand.html
Oh yeah and actually that's not the stand, I got the stand from monoprice.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=108&cp_id=10833&cs_id=1083113&p_id=6862&seq=1&format=2
Monoprice makes great products and sells them cheaply, I recommend them.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:13 PM
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
I know it is, unfortunately, the userspace APIs don't allow 3rd party apps to profit from that. You can't just write code and hope the process scheduler will happily deal with you (as any modern, pre-emptive OS scheduler does). No matter what, your apps gets sent messages to suspend itself and the frameworks are built in a way that if you don't intercept these to "background" certain tasks using a certain limited API to do so, the defaults kick in and you get sent to oblivion.
It's pre-emptive cooperative multi-tasking if you will. It's limiting. This is a "Truck" OS. I don't need limits on truck. If I wanted limits, I'd drive a car, to use the Steve analogy. ;)
I'm talking about intelligent pre-emptive multitasking with API's that allow the Apps to make intelligent decisions removing the burden from users to "clean up" after apps they have launched but aren't using.
Apps aren't intelligent (artificial intelligence ain't quite there yet). If I have apps open, there's a reason and I want them to stay open. I'm not CPU/memory limited enough to warrant dumping these to some kind of swap space and prevented from sitting in their idle loop, waiting on their input.
Taking control away from the user is in the end dumbing down the experience. This is what most folks are afraid of with all these features.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
They can only be instantly available if they stay resident in RAM. If they are swapped out, then they need to be swapped back in.
Vantage Point
Apr 27, 07:06 AM
My title for my first job after Grad school in 1984 was Applications Engineer, my next job in 1987 was Applications Manager. Do you think I have a case against apple using a variation of my old title??? At any rate, I would happy settle of a them giving me the latest iPhone, iPad and a MBP of choice every two years for life ;)
zivilist
Apr 19, 01:36 PM
Please...Please...Please...provide a pro graphics card option (FirePro or Quadro)
Not possible: the iMac is not a workstation. Hopefully a big HD6xxx and a big hexa and quadcore are included.
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
Agreed. 64 GB and 128 GB SSD option would be nice (already posted this feedback to apple).
Not possible: the iMac is not a workstation. Hopefully a big HD6xxx and a big hexa and quadcore are included.
I just hope that the SSD option is more affordable. For me the top chip on the 27inch is a no-brainer but the SSD turns a $2200 computer into a $2950 computer. Hell, in San Francisco I have to tack 9.5% tax on that too.
Agreed. 64 GB and 128 GB SSD option would be nice (already posted this feedback to apple).
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 08:23 AM
In general, "Applications" are what Apple run on their Mac OS platform "Apps" are what they run on their iOS platform, a cut down version of Mac OS X with a cut down but related and familiar name.
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
Other operating systems (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
Chundles
Aug 7, 03:31 AM
An image of the new iPhone just came out! I can't reveal the source I got it from, but you have to trust me, this is the real deal!
OMG!!
Dat iz teh secks!!
OMG!!
Dat iz teh secks!!
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
twoodcc
Feb 8, 03:42 AM
congrats to lyzardking for 6 million points!
chairguru22
Jul 18, 11:20 AM
a movie will be 500MB at least and thats just iPod quality. Full-screen computer monitor quality thats watchable is at least 700MB that ive experienced.
people want to rent and watch movies on their tv so if there isnt a way to do this easily, even rentals will fail.
people want to rent and watch movies on their tv so if there isnt a way to do this easily, even rentals will fail.
quagmire
Jan 6, 04:43 PM
That's all that matters, no? I'm not gonna be going around Fred Flintstone-ing my bimmer...
There is the electronics that control the engine, etc. You will probably have to do some engine work along the way as well. My dads old E46 had to replace the water pump at 45,000 miles because it blew up( warranty), replace a pulley as it began to squeal at 65,000 miles( wasn't cheap, but forgot the exact amount it cost), and started to run roughly at 70,000 miles when idling. Dealer said it was due to my dad putting 87 in the tank when BMW recommends 91/93. Though when my brother got the car and replaced the spark plugs, the engine smoothed out again. Right now at 150,000 miles I believe my brother stated he thinks the crankcase is starting to go.
BMW( or any German vehicle) is going to be expensive to maintain. There is no getting around it.
There is the electronics that control the engine, etc. You will probably have to do some engine work along the way as well. My dads old E46 had to replace the water pump at 45,000 miles because it blew up( warranty), replace a pulley as it began to squeal at 65,000 miles( wasn't cheap, but forgot the exact amount it cost), and started to run roughly at 70,000 miles when idling. Dealer said it was due to my dad putting 87 in the tank when BMW recommends 91/93. Though when my brother got the car and replaced the spark plugs, the engine smoothed out again. Right now at 150,000 miles I believe my brother stated he thinks the crankcase is starting to go.
BMW( or any German vehicle) is going to be expensive to maintain. There is no getting around it.
bketchum
Sep 1, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment