*LTD*
Mar 27, 04:13 PM
There is a difference between being realistic about devices and having your head in the clouds. I LOVE my apple gear and can't wait to get an ipad, but I am realistic in it's current capability
I assume that's what you meant. Because we've seen touchscreen devices advance by leaps and bounds since June 2007. In two years' time it will very likely be an entirely new ballgame with such devices being a dominant force in tech, including gaming.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
I assume that's what you meant. Because we've seen touchscreen devices advance by leaps and bounds since June 2007. In two years' time it will very likely be an entirely new ballgame with such devices being a dominant force in tech, including gaming.
This little demo is just barely scratching the surface.
ghostface147
Mar 24, 01:58 PM
Can it run crysis 2?
Photics
Mar 25, 06:08 PM
This is cool to look at, but it's just a workaround for what should be happening... the Apple TV should run apps / play games. It's an iOS device. There's no need to get crazy with wires hanging off the side of an iPad.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 3, 02:31 AM
I will give it the benefit of the doubt until I get a chance to test drive it.
Apropos to our discussion here, if Volkswagen takes the Jetta downmarket, that will bode well for GM and the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
Apropos to our discussion here, if Volkswagen takes the Jetta downmarket, that will bode well for GM and the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
speedythecat
Oct 6, 12:55 PM
That looks great! I too am thinking about getting the Belkin Grip Vue. My BestBuy currently has all the colors in stock. Looks like the night sky is the hot seller there.
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
Question.. Just how big of deal is it that the volume and sleep buttons are covered? Just looks like it would be sort of a pain in the butt to push through the material to get to and then push the buttons, or is it less squishy than it looks??
budman1961
Nov 27, 07:06 AM
What do you think of this drive?
I have that drive in my mid-2010 MBP 15" 2.66, and I am impressed. 50 second cold boot to Outlook full load. App opening is fast, reopening the same app is almost instantaneous. You will take a slight hit in battery, I think less than 1/2 hour or so, but it was well worth it for me.
Avoid the temptation to restore from a backup (documents only), take the time to reinstall each app, and you will be delighted. I had plenty of time, and did it both ways, restore from time machine, and later app by app. If you have the time, app by app is much better, plus you can really look at what you have installed over time, and purge what you no longer use.
Well worth the $$! :D
I have that drive in my mid-2010 MBP 15" 2.66, and I am impressed. 50 second cold boot to Outlook full load. App opening is fast, reopening the same app is almost instantaneous. You will take a slight hit in battery, I think less than 1/2 hour or so, but it was well worth it for me.
Avoid the temptation to restore from a backup (documents only), take the time to reinstall each app, and you will be delighted. I had plenty of time, and did it both ways, restore from time machine, and later app by app. If you have the time, app by app is much better, plus you can really look at what you have installed over time, and purge what you no longer use.
Well worth the $$! :D
imnotatfault
Aug 19, 07:16 AM
Except at a lot of Starbucks that internet functionality comes at a cost, which is my point.
May be bliss, but not until we have a sound infrastructure. And I have been on some really shoddy networks, which ends up becoming far more frustrating than worthwhile, to the point where I just slam my PDA into my pocket and curse inaudibly.
May be bliss, but not until we have a sound infrastructure. And I have been on some really shoddy networks, which ends up becoming far more frustrating than worthwhile, to the point where I just slam my PDA into my pocket and curse inaudibly.
baryon
Mar 31, 07:19 AM
Non-full screen: http://grab.by/9LUu
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
Oh my GOD why Apple why?? This is horrid!
Full screen: http://grab.by/9LUv
Oh my GOD why Apple why?? This is horrid!
Tonsko
Jan 9, 03:53 AM
Pretty fly zmmer with nice rims! Not tempted to squeeze 17/18s on? (Assuming it won't **** up the running gear/handling)
mattster16
Nov 28, 02:51 AM
I think this is a good move. I would never buy a monitor that small personally, but it would match up perfectly with the Mini. Right now there really isn't a good option; the 20" is just too expensive.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
A huge amount of customers buying a basic PC are still going with 15" and 17" LCDs, mostly not widescreen.
Chundles
Aug 7, 05:18 AM
Aussie waiters must earn a fortune. My sister in law worked as a waitress in the USA and earned over US$1000 per weekend in wages and tips. So what's it like in Oz?
We don't get tips. The comparison was between minimum wage in Alberta, Canada and regular award wages in NSW (same as minimum wage).
NSW minimum wage for class 3 waiter at age 23: $17ph mon-fri, $20ph sat, $24ph sun.
Alberta minimum wage ~5.90ph regardless of day, level and age.
Mind you this was back in both wages have gone up since.
I earnt over $5000 in about 3 months working 5 nights a week for a max of about 5 hours per shift.
We don't get tips. The comparison was between minimum wage in Alberta, Canada and regular award wages in NSW (same as minimum wage).
NSW minimum wage for class 3 waiter at age 23: $17ph mon-fri, $20ph sat, $24ph sun.
Alberta minimum wage ~5.90ph regardless of day, level and age.
Mind you this was back in both wages have gone up since.
I earnt over $5000 in about 3 months working 5 nights a week for a max of about 5 hours per shift.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:41 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
Peace
Nov 30, 09:02 AM
i just want to know if this will replace the airport express.
Don't think it will replace the Airtunes but be a product of it's own.
There will be an updated Airport though..802.11n.
Don't think it will replace the Airtunes but be a product of it's own.
There will be an updated Airport though..802.11n.
prady16
Oct 23, 08:11 AM
I hope they start shipping them right away or at least have loooots of stock available at the retail stores!
epicwelshman
Sep 1, 12:36 PM
You KNOW iPod updates are imminent, why the hell would you care about this deal, for a soon-to-be replaced product?
Probably because it's FREE.
Probably because it's FREE.
alust2013
Apr 11, 10:15 AM
But I really want an S-2000. :(
YES. I want one of those so bad, especially an '03 or slightly older, before they changed them. Although the newer ones did look better.
YES. I want one of those so bad, especially an '03 or slightly older, before they changed them. Although the newer ones did look better.
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
termite
Nov 15, 11:23 AM
My Wife and I each have a ton-o-spam to process, and leave our Mail.apps open all the time. Mail.app uses up a full core for a few minutes at a time (G5 2.0GHz). So occasionally the computer is fully loaded just from the suckiness of Mail.app. It's very distruptive to doing anything else on the computer -- watching videos becomes very pretty much impossible. The kids sometimes leave their Safaris pointed at some flashy website which, between the two kids, takes another half-core.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
Eight cores makes me think seriously of upgrading.
dmelgar
Apr 19, 11:09 AM
Does this mean a Mini update is right behind it?
wolfboy
Oct 1, 12:17 AM
I saw a youtube video of someone having that same problem. His tip was to use a very small pinch of baby powder and put it on your finger. Then rub it thoroughly all over the back of the iPod. Once you put on the case the watermarks should disappear.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
joshellis625
May 2, 04:33 PM
I think this is pretty awesome. I know that currently all you have to do is drag the app to the trash but it always bothers me that it could leave leftover files in Library, etc., which is why I use AppCleaner. I think having this more streamlined and comprehensive way of removing apps would be a lot better.
archer75
Apr 20, 08:20 AM
Fixed!
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
The 6950m and 6970m are also available in 2gb models. That would help with the larger resolution of the 27" display. Let's hope for that as well!
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
Gays freak out over the considered "normal" person rights...
Probably because they are "normal" persons. :rolleyes:
Agreed!
You fell into the "no emoticons" trap as well. LOL. There's sarcasm in the post you just agreed to.
Probably because they are "normal" persons. :rolleyes:
Agreed!
You fell into the "no emoticons" trap as well. LOL. There's sarcasm in the post you just agreed to.
No comments:
Post a Comment