mscriv
Mar 23, 01:06 PM
Here's one of my favorite quotes...
Lighthouses are more useful than churches -Benjamin Franklin
According to Wikipedia this is not an accurate quote.
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
Also quoted as �Lighthouses are more helpful than churches� or �A lighthouse is more useful than a church.� Although not by Franklin in this form, it may be intended as a paraphrase of something he wrote to his wife on 17 July 1757, given in a footnote on page 133 of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). After describing a narrow escape from shipwreck he added:
"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."
I agree with your point though that the majority of founding fathers were not Christian and that America is not a Christian nation.
Lighthouses are more useful than churches -Benjamin Franklin
According to Wikipedia this is not an accurate quote.
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
Also quoted as �Lighthouses are more helpful than churches� or �A lighthouse is more useful than a church.� Although not by Franklin in this form, it may be intended as a paraphrase of something he wrote to his wife on 17 July 1757, given in a footnote on page 133 of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). After describing a narrow escape from shipwreck he added:
"The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received: were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."
I agree with your point though that the majority of founding fathers were not Christian and that America is not a Christian nation.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 07:50 PM
So very sad but true. F1 fan here, and rally if I can ever find time to watch it. I might not be a F1 fan for much longer though if they keep making "the ultimate racing machine" slower and slower by limiting the technology :mad: I understand the safety reasons, but its getting to be worse than the bicycle world:eek:
I was a big F1 fan, but once the USGP got cancelled my wife and I became huge ALMS fans. Evey year we go to the 12 Hours of Sebring, Road America, and Petit Le Mans. The racing is much better than in F1, and the series is far more fan friendly. I've even started working in the hot pits doing IMSA pit notes during races, in addition to the race photography I have been doing for fun.
One point to consider about F1 rules changes. Slowing the cars down could improve the on track action. Right now they are so fast they get too spread out and it becomes a parade of cars with the action being how the gaps change. When you slow the cars down they start to bunch together again and force some wheel to wheel battles. The turbo 4-bangers coming in a few years could prove to add some excitement back to F1, even if it does cost us the terrific sound of high revving V8 engines. The rule changes aren't so much about safety as they are about trying to get a race to ensue.
I was a big F1 fan, but once the USGP got cancelled my wife and I became huge ALMS fans. Evey year we go to the 12 Hours of Sebring, Road America, and Petit Le Mans. The racing is much better than in F1, and the series is far more fan friendly. I've even started working in the hot pits doing IMSA pit notes during races, in addition to the race photography I have been doing for fun.
One point to consider about F1 rules changes. Slowing the cars down could improve the on track action. Right now they are so fast they get too spread out and it becomes a parade of cars with the action being how the gaps change. When you slow the cars down they start to bunch together again and force some wheel to wheel battles. The turbo 4-bangers coming in a few years could prove to add some excitement back to F1, even if it does cost us the terrific sound of high revving V8 engines. The rule changes aren't so much about safety as they are about trying to get a race to ensue.
HecubusPro
Aug 24, 07:36 PM
nice one... was looking to buy a mini to 'integrate' into my CAR... might wait now, then pick up a core solo intel for cheap! hopefully....
http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/
I have a Prius, and when I saw this guy put a mac mini in his Prius, I nearly died with envy. I would love to do this, but I have feeling the cost/trouble would be way out of my realm, and I don't know that I would trust someone to void the warranty on my car.:)
Still it's a cool idea.
Doctor Q
Mar 22, 04:58 PM
I guess I'm glad about this news.
However, I don't know anybody who has bought an iPod in the past couple of years.
However, I don't know anybody who has bought an iPod in the past couple of years.
zoozx
Sep 6, 07:26 PM
If you can't burn it it will never fly.
People can just join netflix and do there own sampling for much cheaper.
People can just join netflix and do there own sampling for much cheaper.
aeaglex07
Mar 31, 08:11 AM
:eek: yeah that new iCal is hideous. i know its still just a dev preview but if that is any indicator of the rest of the UI i wont be upgrading. LOL
dpMacsmith
Jul 20, 08:20 AM
I think it'll be very awkward for Steve to announce the Mac Pros without a UB version of Photoshop being available, however I can't see CS3 being finished. However we know that Indesign is progressing well, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Chizen came on stage and announced the availability of time limited betas; assuming Adobe are willing to help Apple.
I listened to most of the call and evidently missed this statement. I think it means that CS2, or Office, or Indesign will be out in some form. Probably as public Beta as you suggest. But, this is good news!
Market share increase is good news as well. It should happen, there are a lot of things positive about Apple computer now.
I listened to most of the call and evidently missed this statement. I think it means that CS2, or Office, or Indesign will be out in some form. Probably as public Beta as you suggest. But, this is good news!
Market share increase is good news as well. It should happen, there are a lot of things positive about Apple computer now.
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:51 PM
You know I originally thought that, but I kind of like the way it works now. I would much rather have a few codecs that work very well. Then play everything under the sun just not very well.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Perhaps I'm selling iTunes short in what it can currently play without re-encoding, but it seems really slim.
Carl Spackler
Nov 29, 03:46 PM
With HDMI, they'd have to be shooting higher than 480p. I'd say they'd go all out with 1080p, why not?
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
I was pleased and surprised to see no s-video out. They're clearly aiming for a product that's designed to stick around for a while. If we're going to see blu-ray Macs, and how can we not, iTV will have to be able to handle 1080p content.
kalun
Oct 23, 11:00 PM
Meanwhile, product checks (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2163) indicate that several European hardware distributers "ran dry" of MacBook and MacBook Pro inventory several weeks ago.
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
Well, in Japan, there are enough Macbook Pro so that it is shipped within 24 hours. so...ya....
TerryJ
Jul 14, 08:25 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
smithrh
Apr 9, 09:12 PM
Sure, I learned on stick-shift and drove several years with a variety of cars and trucks, including 3-on-the-tree 1978 Suburban (manual steering, manual brakes, what a bear that was!)... never drove a double-clutch though.
Manuals - while they absolutely can be a fun riot - are losing their advantages over automatics, including fast-locking TCs and DCTs and such.
Car manufacturers have to certify each car type - if they offer an automatic and a manual, that's two different cars to the US government's eyes, and both have to be tested.
Plus, of all the major auto racing circuits, only NASCAR still uses stick shifts. That ought to tell people something...
Manuals - while they absolutely can be a fun riot - are losing their advantages over automatics, including fast-locking TCs and DCTs and such.
Car manufacturers have to certify each car type - if they offer an automatic and a manual, that's two different cars to the US government's eyes, and both have to be tested.
Plus, of all the major auto racing circuits, only NASCAR still uses stick shifts. That ought to tell people something...
Evangelion
Jul 20, 05:05 AM
People dont want to download the source and compile it
What makes you think that you have to do that?
even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect.
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
What makes you think that you have to do that?
even the best package managers dont really solve the problem, I want to download any application and run it, I dont want to have something check dependancies and then get teh appropriate version ect.
have you ever used Linux? Application-installation in any modern Linux-distro is VERY smooth. If I want to install an app in Ubuntu (the previous distro I used), how do I do that? Well, I load a package-manager, which gives me a list of apps. I select the app I want to install, and click "Install". And that's it. How much simpler could it be? Why does everyone think that loading a web-browser, searching the app with Google, browsing to the website, downloading the installer (assuming that the apps is free. Usually with Mac, it's not) and running the installer is somehow "easier" that launching an app, selecting the app to be installed from a list and clicking "install"? Seriously?
The newest Suse enterprise desktop has a lot of Mac os like features, and claim to have done a lot of research into user interface optomization ect, but thats only Suse, what about the rest, Linux will never have a singular unified front, and that is its achilees heel, and the macs inherant strenght (ok so the mac isnt that unified anymore)
What do you mean by "unified front"? The GUI? Most distros use either KDE or GNOME (usually alloweing the user to choose which one he prefers), so they are in fact quite unified.
dime21
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Yep - I'm not sure that I have ever even been in an automatic!
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
Agreed, I've never owned an automatic car in my life. And I've owned more than a dozen cars. 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, all manuals. Automatic? No thanks, not interested.
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
The only exception to this is the very newest DSG from VW/Audi, PDK from Porsche, and SMG from BMW. Mechanically, they are manual transmissions, but with computer-controlled shifers and no clutch pedal. Sounds complicated, but from the driver's perspective, it isn't. Put it in Drive, and go, no clutch pedal, no manual shifting - same driver controls as a traditional automatic. But with the power and fuel efficiency of a manual. Win-win.
chuckles:)
Jan 12, 05:01 PM
Apple would never call a computer a "macbook air".
its a stupid name that says nothing about the product.
its a stupid name that says nothing about the product.
jxyama
Mar 19, 04:44 PM
well for just once I would like the fastest single cpu in one of the consumer models and give it a good video card. thats all not asking for the world.
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
for "consumer prices"? doubtful, because you are asking for a top-notch gaming machine. it's not a consumer machine at all. so why should it be priced as such?
do you call a PC with PIV EE with a top notch radeon video card "consumer"? is it priced as "consumer" machine?
Built
Apr 2, 09:51 PM
Seriously? You do understand that that is a small sample of folks. Most of whom choose to gripe and moan and not to do things like return it.
Anne Hathaway as Maggie
Anne Hathaway Picture #75
Reacent Post
cult hero
Mar 22, 06:14 PM
The question is WHY? You can keep your nano/touch...
Yeah, I don't understand when people want to kill products they don't use. Like I care if the Classic keeps on going. I know at least three people that still prefer it.
Personally, I'm at the point where I'd almost trash my personal collection in favor of Pandora, but that doesn't mean OTHER people don't want to carry a ton of music with them.
Yeah, I don't understand when people want to kill products they don't use. Like I care if the Classic keeps on going. I know at least three people that still prefer it.
Personally, I'm at the point where I'd almost trash my personal collection in favor of Pandora, but that doesn't mean OTHER people don't want to carry a ton of music with them.
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
lyzardking
May 5, 07:28 AM
oh ok.
you know, if you use the console client, you can tell it how many cores to use - like smp 7 would only use 7, instead of 8. but i'm not sure if it would make the deadline with only 7. probably not with less than that though.
so with the 09's you can do other things while it's folding bigadv units and no problems?
After I read your suggestion it occurred to me that I have access to the console (through inCrease) and can change it there (also where I told it not to do large units, wouldn't get done in time on the 08) I am running a3 on the 09 though (not sure if those are bigadv)
After rereading my reply to:
you might want to make a thread over at the folding forums about it - maybe they can help
It was no wonder you were confused, I should let F@H know (I was referring to forums here) to many rum & cokes while on vaca I guess :o
As for the 08 MP, folding & doing other things. I'm folding now & have itunes open with three windows while listening to a playlist of ~ 1425 songs. Mail & Safari will sometimes beachball a bit when iTunes changes songs (iTunes CPU usage goes from ~8 to a bit over a 100) iPhoto seems to be OK (w/4k photos)
The 09s on the other hand can fold (using 8 cores) and use HB and be as usable as the 08 that's just folding (and make the preferred dates, If I remember right, I'll need to confirm that one) **CONFIRMED**
you know, if you use the console client, you can tell it how many cores to use - like smp 7 would only use 7, instead of 8. but i'm not sure if it would make the deadline with only 7. probably not with less than that though.
so with the 09's you can do other things while it's folding bigadv units and no problems?
After I read your suggestion it occurred to me that I have access to the console (through inCrease) and can change it there (also where I told it not to do large units, wouldn't get done in time on the 08) I am running a3 on the 09 though (not sure if those are bigadv)
After rereading my reply to:
you might want to make a thread over at the folding forums about it - maybe they can help
It was no wonder you were confused, I should let F@H know (I was referring to forums here) to many rum & cokes while on vaca I guess :o
As for the 08 MP, folding & doing other things. I'm folding now & have itunes open with three windows while listening to a playlist of ~ 1425 songs. Mail & Safari will sometimes beachball a bit when iTunes changes songs (iTunes CPU usage goes from ~8 to a bit over a 100) iPhoto seems to be OK (w/4k photos)
The 09s on the other hand can fold (using 8 cores) and use HB and be as usable as the 08 that's just folding (and make the preferred dates, If I remember right, I'll need to confirm that one) **CONFIRMED**
Compile 'em all
Jan 5, 08:27 AM
BTW, right-clicking on an Apple notebook is now awesome! The "two-fingers on trackpad" click is great, and actually easier than having two buttons IMO.
Do you have any idea if it is possible to get such a feature working on non-intel machines (e.g powerbook G4)?
Do you have any idea if it is possible to get such a feature working on non-intel machines (e.g powerbook G4)?
Don Kosak
May 2, 06:02 PM
So you're saying we should go back to Mac OS Classic cooperative multi-tasking ?
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
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.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
That's what the big deal about this auto-save / resume / versioning stuff is about.
Hello ?
The 80s called, they want their computing paradigms back. Cooperative multi-tasking makes sense on ressource limited architectures. Even the iPhone/iPad like devices are far from "ressource limited". We had pre-emptive multi-tasking on much less capable devices (think 386s with 8 MB of RAM).
Never said anything about cooperative multi-tasking.
iOS is not cooperative multi-tasking. It's fully pre-emptive.
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.
I'm talking about Apps that are, to the user, ALWAYS instantly available in exactly the same state that they left them in.
That's what the big deal about this auto-save / resume / versioning stuff is about.
AppleCode
Nov 26, 07:14 AM
Holly crap i have the same thing! You have ethe Blackberry 3G?
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
Ya I do :D Also just bought http://iweb.cooking.com/images/products/enlarge/313920e.jpg
islanders
Dec 28, 01:08 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.
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.
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?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
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.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
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.
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?
Sorry, I�m still on a G3, but I still don�t get it. A 42�� LCD/Plasma is just a monitor so it would display a word document, and I assumed the new Macs would play a movie also.
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.
I don�t care if an iPod dock in included or not, but the iTV will be connected to a home theater system, so it would be convenient addition.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
Also I thought preserving digital media was the process of saving it to disk? I haven�t done a lot of this but assumed it was matter of disk space.
0 comments:
Post a Comment