Multimedia
Nov 23, 10:32 AM
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I thought the Mac mini would be Core 2 Duo by now for sure. I guess they still have quite a backlog of Core Duo units not yet sold. Maybe they're getting killer discounts from Intel on those old slow Core Duo processors.
Seems like the supply of the faster Clovertowns is probably weak enough for Apple to wait until January at least. My own thought now is that if we have to wait for January, might as well wait a little longer for the Stoakley-Seaburg (SS) chips (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) to ship so the first 8-core Mac Pro can be a really killer machine. Then there's also the issue of Leopard shipping about the same time the full on 8-core with SS setup will be really ready in quantity so Apple can keep up with demand.
So I've set my brain on March '07 now so I won't have another prematurely earger anticipation attack before then. That way if it happens sooner I'll be pleasantly surprised but still may wait for it to ship with Leopard. I will also feel a lot better spending $4k+ on an 8-core with SS inside as well. I'm thinking that may be Apple's plan too. Seems like they would not want to release their first 8-core MP crippled with bottlenecks they know will be opened up in only a few more months. It's also gonna be the most expensive Mac ever sold and I'm sure they want to give their customers their money's worth while at the same time giving their competition headaches. ;) The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:Yeah I was referring to the fact that it's in HD and some of the best music concert editing I have ever seen. Just amazing Emmy Award worthy editing.
The last concert I saw across the pond was a YES concert in Genoa Italy in summer of 1972. :D
Seems like the supply of the faster Clovertowns is probably weak enough for Apple to wait until January at least. My own thought now is that if we have to wait for January, might as well wait a little longer for the Stoakley-Seaburg (SS) chips (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) to ship so the first 8-core Mac Pro can be a really killer machine. Then there's also the issue of Leopard shipping about the same time the full on 8-core with SS setup will be really ready in quantity so Apple can keep up with demand.
So I've set my brain on March '07 now so I won't have another prematurely earger anticipation attack before then. That way if it happens sooner I'll be pleasantly surprised but still may wait for it to ship with Leopard. I will also feel a lot better spending $4k+ on an 8-core with SS inside as well. I'm thinking that may be Apple's plan too. Seems like they would not want to release their first 8-core MP crippled with bottlenecks they know will be opened up in only a few more months. It's also gonna be the most expensive Mac ever sold and I'm sure they want to give their customers their money's worth while at the same time giving their competition headaches. ;) The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:Yeah I was referring to the fact that it's in HD and some of the best music concert editing I have ever seen. Just amazing Emmy Award worthy editing.
The last concert I saw across the pond was a YES concert in Genoa Italy in summer of 1972. :D
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:39 PM
Well, that's because all of Apple's other products are constrained by power and/or space requirements.
Meh, yes and no. For their integrated desktops (iMac)...pws and space are certainly an issue (especially since it doesn't have an accessibly PCI E slot for heavens sake). Now for MP's on the other hand...I dont think it would be an issue: accessible PCI E slots + ample chassis space + stock PWS capable of handling an HD 5870 or Crossfired 5770's. A 6970 shouldnt be a problem.
anyways(no snarkiness implied)...who said crossfire wasnt supported? The MacPro CAN be configured with 2x5770's.
Meh, yes and no. For their integrated desktops (iMac)...pws and space are certainly an issue (especially since it doesn't have an accessibly PCI E slot for heavens sake). Now for MP's on the other hand...I dont think it would be an issue: accessible PCI E slots + ample chassis space + stock PWS capable of handling an HD 5870 or Crossfired 5770's. A 6970 shouldnt be a problem.
anyways(no snarkiness implied)...who said crossfire wasnt supported? The MacPro CAN be configured with 2x5770's.
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
slb
Aug 24, 09:26 PM
Core 2s will be nice, but if you've already got a Core-based Mac now, I wouldn't rush to sell it. The Meroms coming out are an "initial" version according to Intel, designed to be pin-compatible as an easy replacement for the Yonahs. But next year, Intel will be releasing a new platform called Santa Rosa that the Meroms are really designed for, which will increase the frontside bus to really take advantage of the speed of the Meroms, as well as include new WiFi and the "Robson" flash technology for fast-booting.
I suspect we'll see slight case redesigns for Santa Rosa-based Macs. Santa Rosa will be the real Core 2 platform. This year's Meroms are a stopgap.
I suspect we'll see slight case redesigns for Santa Rosa-based Macs. Santa Rosa will be the real Core 2 platform. This year's Meroms are a stopgap.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 09:18 AM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.I do not consider a minor speed bump to be a refresh.
CEAbiscuit
Oct 23, 09:26 AM
Since there is little to no hope that apple will bring back the 12" casing, my powerbook will have to for now. It just seems to keep chugging... the new (free, because of recall) battery seems to further my resolve in resisting to make a move. The earliest purchase of a new powerbook will wait until next year when I can have a new OS. Simpleton's rule...
blizaine
Sep 14, 11:28 AM
Consumer Reports says "we still think the same thing" for the third time and that's first page news? Sounds more like they're fishing for free publicity.
That is all they ever do. It's all about page hits and controversy for them. They did the same thing with the whole protein drink scare they tried to create a few months ago, that his been disproved multiple times.
That is all they ever do. It's all about page hits and controversy for them. They did the same thing with the whole protein drink scare they tried to create a few months ago, that his been disproved multiple times.
Mike84
Apr 26, 01:41 PM
Therefore, Apple should have done one-click instead of 1-click to avoid licensing issues: ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
Apple should get an injunction against App Store knockoffs.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
Tonsko
Jan 11, 03:02 AM
Re:Focus, that's a nice motor. Heard great things about the Mountune kit as well!
Racing wise BTCC and WRC is where it's at for me. Dakar is good too, but only because I get to see about 2 minutes a year I suspect :)
Racing wise BTCC and WRC is where it's at for me. Dakar is good too, but only because I get to see about 2 minutes a year I suspect :)
DewGuy1999
Nov 28, 09:10 AM
and 2 receipts from the Veterinarian Hospital for my female cat - 325.25$
Hope she's doing well.
Hope she's doing well.
BruiserB
May 2, 04:18 PM
I guess that's way easier than dragging it to the trash?
twoodcc
Nov 15, 09:46 AM
well i guess my mac pro will continue to serve me well. so i'm not too worried that new ones are coming out, glad actually. go apple:cool:
deputy_doofy
Sep 6, 09:07 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 don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
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 don't know whether you're right or wrong about a possible design change in the near future, but your terminology is wrong.
The G5 iMac is not a model. The G5 is a CPU. The iMac has not been a "G5" (or, to be more correct, has not had a G5) since January.
It's just "iMac." A G5 with a Core 2 Duo chip is like spouting off how you have a great "Intel Pentium Athlon machine made by AMD." People will see right through the ignorance.
.jpg "Reese Witherspoon Tattoo Pictures. jay tattoo tattoos script; jay tattoo tattoos script. j-hov. Jan 11, 02:34 PM")
MasonH
Apr 2, 11:04 PM
When Apple has their Quarterly press conference expect the iPad 2 to list 4+ million or more sales with back orders in the millions.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
Ummm - the reason probably is shown on the 1400 post "light bleed" thread. People WANT the thing bad so they don't "return" it... they get it "swapped". Quite a few people over there are on their 4th to 5th swap
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
The return rate of all Apple products, across all of their hardware lines are lowest in the entire industry.
The iPhone 4 fiasco had a return rate half of that of the iPhone 3GS that everyone loved.
iPad return rate is at 2%: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20030211-37.html
Look to that being at or lower for the iPad 2.
Ummm - the reason probably is shown on the 1400 post "light bleed" thread. People WANT the thing bad so they don't "return" it... they get it "swapped". Quite a few people over there are on their 4th to 5th swap
(which boggles my mind frankly) in a search to get one with no bleed.
They all seem to have it to varying degrees but I have to hand it to Apple for (so far) not claiming this is "in spec" to shut down all these
"swaps".
Apple probably lists all these as "exchanges" and therefore they don't count as "returns". Makes the customer happy and makes them look good in the press. Everybody wins.
Towards the end of the huge thread over at Apple.com people are being told the same thing from the reps when they call... that Apple "is looking into the qc issue on this batch of iPads and hopes to resolve the issue". That's good news for everybody.
Nero Wolfe
Apr 3, 12:29 PM
One thing that's been frustrating me since DP1 is that when you minimize a window into its app icon it's sort of in limbo. Mission Control won't show it, nor does app expose (at least in some apps). Swipe-up on the dock icon (is this app-expose?) does sometimes, but it's mingled with recent files. Add that to the indicator lights being gone and I could have an open app with 20 minimized windows and totally forget about it.
It's not a huge deal, I suppose, but it makes the window management seem broken. I'd hate to go back to using the old-style minimize to the right side of the dock. I never liked that because it mixed those windows with stacks and got messy, plus it stretched and shrank my already-full dock.
Anyway, anyone else bugged by this? Am i missing something? Expose is the single most important thing to me in OS X; I rely on it to greatly speed my workflow. I like mission Control but this needs to be addressed. And, yes I filed a bug report for each DP release on this.
It's not a huge deal, I suppose, but it makes the window management seem broken. I'd hate to go back to using the old-style minimize to the right side of the dock. I never liked that because it mixed those windows with stacks and got messy, plus it stretched and shrank my already-full dock.
Anyway, anyone else bugged by this? Am i missing something? Expose is the single most important thing to me in OS X; I rely on it to greatly speed my workflow. I like mission Control but this needs to be addressed. And, yes I filed a bug report for each DP release on this.
appleguy123
Mar 20, 06:15 PM
But like homeopathy religion can achieve positive things too.
What does homeopathy achieve?
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
What does homeopathy achieve?
You can't even test homeopathy scientifically against a placebo because the placebo would be identical to the remedy!
shecky
Oct 23, 08:36 PM
So you think Santa Rosa will be out in time for MWSF? I thought the release date was to be in the 2nd quarter of 2007.
correct. santa rosa will not even be released by intel until april 2007 at the earliest, and i would guess not actually in a buyable system until may/june.
correct. santa rosa will not even be released by intel until april 2007 at the earliest, and i would guess not actually in a buyable system until may/june.
Hologram777
Nov 26, 05:33 AM
http://musicalmusings.themindofgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HiFiMan-RE0-3-550x412.jpg
RE0's
RE0's
cube
Mar 24, 05:00 PM
OpenGL is much more like Direct3D. A part of DirectX. DirectX is just a collection of multiple API's. DirectSound is like OpenAL for example.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
I am talking about graphics capabilities now.
You seem to think that DirectX 10.1 cards can't support OpenCL. Well newsflash, they can. DirectX is irrelevant in this conversation not only because it has nothing to do with Mac OS X but because it also has nothing to do with what you're associating it with. The equivalent to OpenCL is DirectCompute.
I am talking about graphics capabilities now.
DNAppleGold
Apr 2, 08:48 PM
from someone who hates the new Iphone (a smug listing of features that most top smartphones have, I love this
roland.g
Aug 30, 12:42 PM
$100 off from $949 down to $849
IMO, not worth it.
IMO, not worth it.
Cat-toy
Sep 14, 10:16 PM
The one on 86th street and Lex.
Yea, that's the ONLY store I've seen this case. I went to the one on 62nd/Broadway, 44th/5th, Union Square, none of them had it. I was surprised when I saw this!
Hey did you happen to notice any other cases that BB had?
Namely this one:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1014647
Just asking as the 86th st.. store is walking distance for me.
Yea, that's the ONLY store I've seen this case. I went to the one on 62nd/Broadway, 44th/5th, Union Square, none of them had it. I was surprised when I saw this!
Hey did you happen to notice any other cases that BB had?
Namely this one:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1014647
Just asking as the 86th st.. store is walking distance for me.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:03 PM
It's always the users fault. :rolleyes:
Why are you rolly-eying your own opinion?
I didn't say anything like that, so if it's what you think then you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Not even sure why you quoted me, honestly.
Why are you rolly-eying your own opinion?
I didn't say anything like that, so if it's what you think then you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
Not even sure why you quoted me, honestly.
mc68k
Nov 18, 09:45 PM
I'm just kind of guessing here but I think folding is costing me about $50 a month :eek:holy crap dude, thats why i fold at work. since big adv i shut off my 4ghz hackie folder
how many machines do you have running?
how many machines do you have running?
