takao
Apr 2, 03:20 PM
And if the US spent even a fraction of the $600 billion a year it spends on its military on aid then we'd all be better off - free mosquito nets for Africans would be a good start (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/libya_v_aid?page=4).
it would be already a good start if current US foreign aid would be used for aid and not military expenses
in some cases of that foreign aid those countries are even required to use the money for military equipment from the US ...
it would be already a good start if current US foreign aid would be used for aid and not military expenses
in some cases of that foreign aid those countries are even required to use the money for military equipment from the US ...
adder7712
Dec 6, 11:04 PM
I really hope HTML 5 video will be widely adopted and we will be less dependent of Flash.
And is also an open standard.
And is also an open standard.
runonthespot
Jul 7, 11:11 AM
I think this is about giving OSX some of that developer love. Having watched people port their games etc to iPad, moving them to iOS on iMac should be simple enough - just another view and maybe higher res graphics if necessary. It opens up possibilities for developers and more customers.
Regarding touch on an imac- I imagine the biggest benefit of touch is the multi-touch aspect. I can imagine map & data exploration apps / programs become insanely compelling on a 22 inch screen, ergonomically slanted to be more like a surface.
Comments are right though- it feels too gimmicky for Apple. Steve Jobs has said he likes to catch technologies at a certain trajectory on the curve... this touch-screen on a big machine feels too low down on the curve and hence too big a risk for apple unless they've come up with a way to add it as a sort of "free" addition. Try to imagine the business case for a machine that has a 22" Retina display that is also a touch-screen... sounds expensive to me.
I think a flavour of iOS as a dock replacement or integrated into Finder makes some sense, opening apps (at least initially) in appropriately sized windows is, I imagine, very doable, especially as iOS is effectively just a subset of OS-X (excluding of course the touch functionality).
What I don't get is the touch "peripheral" being shown elsewhere in the forums... unless you have 5 cursors on screen (confusing), by not touching the screen itself, you introduce abstraction that just eliminates the tactile and simple nature of current multi-touch.
Finally, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be excited about running multitasking multitouch apps from ipad etc on an imac 22" screen!
It would make their widget concept just so much more compelling if each widget was an iphone or ipad app, all running simultaneously on screen in one go.
Regarding touch on an imac- I imagine the biggest benefit of touch is the multi-touch aspect. I can imagine map & data exploration apps / programs become insanely compelling on a 22 inch screen, ergonomically slanted to be more like a surface.
Comments are right though- it feels too gimmicky for Apple. Steve Jobs has said he likes to catch technologies at a certain trajectory on the curve... this touch-screen on a big machine feels too low down on the curve and hence too big a risk for apple unless they've come up with a way to add it as a sort of "free" addition. Try to imagine the business case for a machine that has a 22" Retina display that is also a touch-screen... sounds expensive to me.
I think a flavour of iOS as a dock replacement or integrated into Finder makes some sense, opening apps (at least initially) in appropriately sized windows is, I imagine, very doable, especially as iOS is effectively just a subset of OS-X (excluding of course the touch functionality).
What I don't get is the touch "peripheral" being shown elsewhere in the forums... unless you have 5 cursors on screen (confusing), by not touching the screen itself, you introduce abstraction that just eliminates the tactile and simple nature of current multi-touch.
Finally, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be excited about running multitasking multitouch apps from ipad etc on an imac 22" screen!
It would make their widget concept just so much more compelling if each widget was an iphone or ipad app, all running simultaneously on screen in one go.
mikes63737
Nov 2, 05:56 PM
I'm pretty sure that Flash wouldn't even work on an iPhone. It uses 100% CPU on my MBP and video still lags!
This is probably the reason that Apple doesn't even want to let Adobe make Flash, because they know they would fsck it up somehow.
And, since iPhones overheat, CPU usage at 100% for any length of time could cause the battery to explode!
This is probably the reason that Apple doesn't even want to let Adobe make Flash, because they know they would fsck it up somehow.
And, since iPhones overheat, CPU usage at 100% for any length of time could cause the battery to explode!
840quadra
Sep 12, 01:36 PM
I love the ipod disk gauge on the bottom of the ipod window!
if you click on it , it toggles through 3 separate information readouts (2 shown).
if you click on it , it toggles through 3 separate information readouts (2 shown).
woxel1
Nov 27, 09:43 AM
It's true! All you need is cash.
bedifferent
Mar 19, 10:19 AM
Still have my iPod hooked up via USB in my Infiniti with all my music. Flash is too expensive to replace a HDD with the required size. Maybe a slight revamp but the classic iPod is still selling well enough for Apple I don't see it being removed in the near future.
Full of Win
May 4, 11:09 PM
What took Apple so long? It's stupid that you need to DL the entire OS on your computer to update your device.
treblah
Aug 4, 10:19 AM
Yeah, I said announced. Leopard has been announced since Macworld. That photo may have shown us the cover, but that is not groundbreaking and as nice as it is, as previously mentioned I'm sure it won't be the final disk label. In the words of MosDef, they ain't sayin' nothin' new...
Actually it was announced at last years WWDC. And I'm pretty sure that is final since they changed it from what they showed perviously. ;)
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=54220
Actually it was announced at last years WWDC. And I'm pretty sure that is final since they changed it from what they showed perviously. ;)
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=54220
dashiel
Aug 8, 12:51 PM
I don't see how adjusting the UI at the last minute could be any sort of OK. Do you really want developers using the Tiger finder for the next 7 months, and then all of the sudden Apple goes BAM (Emeril Style) and puts in a brand new finder.
a) apple did the exact same thing with OS X. aqua was kept under wraps for a long, long time from the general public and public developers. up until maybe a year before hand we all though OS X was going to look like OS 9.
b) if you work with big software makers you'll know that top tier developers get access to things that aren't made publicly available months and years in advance. the last alpha/beta cycle i participated in started one month after the latest release (and i was on the second invite list).
I want those developers to be able to integrate the finder with their apps. If all Apple is doing is adjusting some colors or icons or something, then we shouldn't be excited about the new finder in the first place. But if Apple is going to do some major revamping, shame on them for keeping it a secret.
People need time to work with it and find all the kinks, especially if it is dramatically different from Tiger
a) see above regarding developers. just because we didn't see it in the keynote doesn't mean that the developers haven't
b) app developers don't really integrate with the finder.
c) tiger represented a big shift in OS X development. apple publicly stated that their APIs, previously a moving target, were basically being locked down. what that means is developers don't have to worry (as much) about under the hood changes. if the file browser dialog changes dramatically between now and next spring developers should theoretically have to do nothing, their function/method calls are just calls.
a) apple did the exact same thing with OS X. aqua was kept under wraps for a long, long time from the general public and public developers. up until maybe a year before hand we all though OS X was going to look like OS 9.
b) if you work with big software makers you'll know that top tier developers get access to things that aren't made publicly available months and years in advance. the last alpha/beta cycle i participated in started one month after the latest release (and i was on the second invite list).
I want those developers to be able to integrate the finder with their apps. If all Apple is doing is adjusting some colors or icons or something, then we shouldn't be excited about the new finder in the first place. But if Apple is going to do some major revamping, shame on them for keeping it a secret.
People need time to work with it and find all the kinks, especially if it is dramatically different from Tiger
a) see above regarding developers. just because we didn't see it in the keynote doesn't mean that the developers haven't
b) app developers don't really integrate with the finder.
c) tiger represented a big shift in OS X development. apple publicly stated that their APIs, previously a moving target, were basically being locked down. what that means is developers don't have to worry (as much) about under the hood changes. if the file browser dialog changes dramatically between now and next spring developers should theoretically have to do nothing, their function/method calls are just calls.
iphone3gs16gb
Mar 29, 02:32 PM
Man, Apple keeps getting lower and lower. First Walmart, now this?
Who cares where you buy it?
It's still an iPad, right? :rolleyes:
Who cares where you buy it?
It's still an iPad, right? :rolleyes:
cpucrash0
Mar 28, 10:20 PM
I think people who say that no new iphone 5 is going to be announced are people who just got a verizon iphone and are on contract and so they hope that no new iphone comes out.
williamsonrg
Oct 26, 07:19 PM
The later option involves an ugly screw in the middle of your macbook.
I just had my heatsink replaced last weekend, and I just now noticed the screw. Oh well...:cool:
I just had my heatsink replaced last weekend, and I just now noticed the screw. Oh well...:cool:
iGary
Aug 24, 05:15 PM
I'm pretty surprised by coverage of these stories so far.
It's basically
Exploding DELL & APPLE batteries, manufactured by sony.
It really should be
SONY, who can't even build batteries worth a **** anymore let alone anything else, has screwed the pooch for Dell and Apple.
Well Apple certainly got more sensational coverage over their recall. Hence the Apple haters in my life barraging me with BS. :rolleyes:
It's basically
Exploding DELL & APPLE batteries, manufactured by sony.
It really should be
SONY, who can't even build batteries worth a **** anymore let alone anything else, has screwed the pooch for Dell and Apple.
Well Apple certainly got more sensational coverage over their recall. Hence the Apple haters in my life barraging me with BS. :rolleyes:
womble2k2
Mar 19, 01:41 PM
The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch. The ClickWheel "interface" of the classic is a royal pain in the back when you have to navigate through thousands of titles.
If you use a classic for a long time, you get very used to the click wheel and find navigation easy.
My soon to be sister-in-law has had a classic since the third generation (currently uses a 5th gen and an iPhone). She has got so used to the click wheel, she can move around her library (which maxes out her 80 Gig drive) in seconds. It's amazing to watch!
I guess it is like some people do not like touchscreen phones and would prefer to have a fiddly little keyboard to type messages than a virtual keyboard.
My guess is that the classic will remain, but may get a touch interface, maybe even a virtual click wheel using a little bit of vibration to give some feedback.
There is a chance that the next iPod Touch will have a 128 Gig option, but it will be at a high price. I always think there is a need for a cost effective hard drive based iPod. Even looking at the Keynote where the iPod was announced, SJ compared the price per song and at the time, dividing the purchase price of devices by the number of tracks they held (a bit meaningless, but does prove a point), Flash was at $10 / track and Hard Drive was at $0.30 per track.
Doing those calculations of the various models of Touch and the Classic you get;
(Based on 256 Kbps AAC)
8GB Touch = $0.31 per track
32 GB Touch = $0.08 per track
64 GB Touch = $0.05 per track
Classic = $0.01 per track
So the classic is currently the king of affordable personal music storage, however flash memory prices have fallen faster than super compact hard drive prices so should Apple double the capacity and keep the same price points on the next refresh, you could see Touches at around $0.02 to $0.03, so not much in it!
My last point is that no matter how much storage a device has, there will always be people who will want more. I know people who have music libraries that fill a 2 TB external drive! They have however encoded their old CD's at 512 Kbps, so can use the option to re-encode to 128 Kbps when they Sync. The solution here could be cloud based storage, but you would need a constant connection to the internet which would firstly require every device has more than just WiFi. Probably need the Kindle 3G type of solution. Secondly, it is not always possible to be connected (i.e. on flights, underground metro systems, etc) and thirdly, you'd be draining your battery!
Phil
If you use a classic for a long time, you get very used to the click wheel and find navigation easy.
My soon to be sister-in-law has had a classic since the third generation (currently uses a 5th gen and an iPhone). She has got so used to the click wheel, she can move around her library (which maxes out her 80 Gig drive) in seconds. It's amazing to watch!
I guess it is like some people do not like touchscreen phones and would prefer to have a fiddly little keyboard to type messages than a virtual keyboard.
My guess is that the classic will remain, but may get a touch interface, maybe even a virtual click wheel using a little bit of vibration to give some feedback.
There is a chance that the next iPod Touch will have a 128 Gig option, but it will be at a high price. I always think there is a need for a cost effective hard drive based iPod. Even looking at the Keynote where the iPod was announced, SJ compared the price per song and at the time, dividing the purchase price of devices by the number of tracks they held (a bit meaningless, but does prove a point), Flash was at $10 / track and Hard Drive was at $0.30 per track.
Doing those calculations of the various models of Touch and the Classic you get;
(Based on 256 Kbps AAC)
8GB Touch = $0.31 per track
32 GB Touch = $0.08 per track
64 GB Touch = $0.05 per track
Classic = $0.01 per track
So the classic is currently the king of affordable personal music storage, however flash memory prices have fallen faster than super compact hard drive prices so should Apple double the capacity and keep the same price points on the next refresh, you could see Touches at around $0.02 to $0.03, so not much in it!
My last point is that no matter how much storage a device has, there will always be people who will want more. I know people who have music libraries that fill a 2 TB external drive! They have however encoded their old CD's at 512 Kbps, so can use the option to re-encode to 128 Kbps when they Sync. The solution here could be cloud based storage, but you would need a constant connection to the internet which would firstly require every device has more than just WiFi. Probably need the Kindle 3G type of solution. Secondly, it is not always possible to be connected (i.e. on flights, underground metro systems, etc) and thirdly, you'd be draining your battery!
Phil
kaneda
Aug 8, 09:22 PM
New Chassis for MAC PRO please..
zapp
May 4, 11:54 PM
I want to see wifi syncing first...
I just want to be running the same version on my Verizon iPhone as everyone else (that is not using the Verizon iPhone)
I just want to be running the same version on my Verizon iPhone as everyone else (that is not using the Verizon iPhone)
Rafterman
Mar 28, 08:10 PM
The Shack used to be great when you could get all kind of obscure parts, rows and rows of them. Needed to solder something or make your own audio banana plugs? Radio Shack had them. But they pulled all the "parts" out of Radio Shack and now they are just another overpriced electronics store.
YoGramMamma
Jul 22, 11:56 PM
I think it would be neat to not only add ebooks... but MAGAZINES!
i mean, the ipod is a teen/young person trend for the most part anyway.... why not make Seventeen/Vogue/Vibe/XXL/Cosmopolitan for the iPod. Make it categorized like a podcast... so you scroll to what chapter you want.... then read the articles and see the images that correspond with them. You could subscribe to them like you do podcasts but the magazine companies could make you pay to subscribe. Something along the lines of what you'd pay to buy the paperback... or heck... even more since people would pay it.
You would have to regulate the content though for what is sold in the iTMS. Sure a playboy/hustler magazine would sell a gazillion subscriptions but i dont think you could get away with selling it in the itunes store.... Just make it an open .pdf type of file (or even a proprietary kind, that incorporates .pdfs with .jpg's .aac's and .mov's) where joe schmoe can make his own for his friends... or for his business... and Hugh Hefner can make his own and sell it on his own website. This way any blame of inappropriateness would fall on an external site (ie playboy.com) not Apple.
Think of the possibilites.
THough i HATE DRM you could restrict the ".imagazine" file it to the 5 or 7 people who have your account enabled like they do with music. You could have a parental setting in iTunes for what grade of content was allowed....
you could do a whole bunch.... NY times in your palm, Recipe magazines for mom.... porn for timmy.... Businessweek/ PC Mag for dad....
ANd you would have have have to make it where one could view the paper/magazine from the computer. Maybe this could be via Bluetooth or USB.
My mind is going cuh-razy
i mean, the ipod is a teen/young person trend for the most part anyway.... why not make Seventeen/Vogue/Vibe/XXL/Cosmopolitan for the iPod. Make it categorized like a podcast... so you scroll to what chapter you want.... then read the articles and see the images that correspond with them. You could subscribe to them like you do podcasts but the magazine companies could make you pay to subscribe. Something along the lines of what you'd pay to buy the paperback... or heck... even more since people would pay it.
You would have to regulate the content though for what is sold in the iTMS. Sure a playboy/hustler magazine would sell a gazillion subscriptions but i dont think you could get away with selling it in the itunes store.... Just make it an open .pdf type of file (or even a proprietary kind, that incorporates .pdfs with .jpg's .aac's and .mov's) where joe schmoe can make his own for his friends... or for his business... and Hugh Hefner can make his own and sell it on his own website. This way any blame of inappropriateness would fall on an external site (ie playboy.com) not Apple.
Think of the possibilites.
THough i HATE DRM you could restrict the ".imagazine" file it to the 5 or 7 people who have your account enabled like they do with music. You could have a parental setting in iTunes for what grade of content was allowed....
you could do a whole bunch.... NY times in your palm, Recipe magazines for mom.... porn for timmy.... Businessweek/ PC Mag for dad....
ANd you would have have have to make it where one could view the paper/magazine from the computer. Maybe this could be via Bluetooth or USB.
My mind is going cuh-razy
hulugu
Aug 3, 06:34 PM
If that iPhone is true, then it would be the ugliest product released by Apple in a long time. What's next...a Pippin 2 Perhaps..
It's a picture of a MacBook Pro, but it's just cut off at the edge.
It's a picture of a MacBook Pro, but it's just cut off at the edge.
runonthespot
Jul 7, 11:11 AM
I think this is about giving OSX some of that developer love. Having watched people port their games etc to iPad, moving them to iOS on iMac should be simple enough - just another view and maybe higher res graphics if necessary. It opens up possibilities for developers and more customers.
Regarding touch on an imac- I imagine the biggest benefit of touch is the multi-touch aspect. I can imagine map & data exploration apps / programs become insanely compelling on a 22 inch screen, ergonomically slanted to be more like a surface.
Comments are right though- it feels too gimmicky for Apple. Steve Jobs has said he likes to catch technologies at a certain trajectory on the curve... this touch-screen on a big machine feels too low down on the curve and hence too big a risk for apple unless they've come up with a way to add it as a sort of "free" addition. Try to imagine the business case for a machine that has a 22" Retina display that is also a touch-screen... sounds expensive to me.
I think a flavour of iOS as a dock replacement or integrated into Finder makes some sense, opening apps (at least initially) in appropriately sized windows is, I imagine, very doable, especially as iOS is effectively just a subset of OS-X (excluding of course the touch functionality).
What I don't get is the touch "peripheral" being shown elsewhere in the forums... unless you have 5 cursors on screen (confusing), by not touching the screen itself, you introduce abstraction that just eliminates the tactile and simple nature of current multi-touch.
Finally, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be excited about running multitasking multitouch apps from ipad etc on an imac 22" screen!
It would make their widget concept just so much more compelling if each widget was an iphone or ipad app, all running simultaneously on screen in one go.
Regarding touch on an imac- I imagine the biggest benefit of touch is the multi-touch aspect. I can imagine map & data exploration apps / programs become insanely compelling on a 22 inch screen, ergonomically slanted to be more like a surface.
Comments are right though- it feels too gimmicky for Apple. Steve Jobs has said he likes to catch technologies at a certain trajectory on the curve... this touch-screen on a big machine feels too low down on the curve and hence too big a risk for apple unless they've come up with a way to add it as a sort of "free" addition. Try to imagine the business case for a machine that has a 22" Retina display that is also a touch-screen... sounds expensive to me.
I think a flavour of iOS as a dock replacement or integrated into Finder makes some sense, opening apps (at least initially) in appropriately sized windows is, I imagine, very doable, especially as iOS is effectively just a subset of OS-X (excluding of course the touch functionality).
What I don't get is the touch "peripheral" being shown elsewhere in the forums... unless you have 5 cursors on screen (confusing), by not touching the screen itself, you introduce abstraction that just eliminates the tactile and simple nature of current multi-touch.
Finally, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be excited about running multitasking multitouch apps from ipad etc on an imac 22" screen!
It would make their widget concept just so much more compelling if each widget was an iphone or ipad app, all running simultaneously on screen in one go.
MrCrowbar
Oct 28, 11:58 AM
I got 2 MacBooks for my business and i just got them shipped to me the other day, i installed the SMC Firmware update and tested the machine under the core-duo test for 45 minutes and nothing.
I did notice the fan was going like a jet engine and was waitin for the macbook to lunch off the desk but that never happend
when checked the temp before the test it was 40 C ... during the test it was 78 C ... after the test it went down to 56 C and it stayed like that for 45 minutes on idel before it went down to 45 C
how do i know if the heat sink on my MacBooks have been replaces or not, they were both costom orderd MBs and i did wait 1 month to get them from apple website
Your Macbooks are perfectly fine. Basically the fan control does the following:
1. Keep the CPU below a certain temperature (It's 57°C or something, don't
know with the new firmware)
2. Minimum fan speed is 1500 rpm (even at 2500 rpm, you don't hear the fans, the hard drive spin and CPU noise are still louder)
So in your case the Macbook cooled down below the threshold after the test. Thenthe fans on low speed slowly cooled it down. Try out SMCFANCONTROL and play around with the slider. If you put the fans to max speed when the macbook is idling, the temperature should go below 50°C within a few seconds. Beliece it or not, the room temperature ant the heat conductivity factor of the surface your macbooks are on (wood = bad, cold metal = good) are a big factor. Lift the hinge of the Macbook up with a pack of smokes if you want good air flow :-)
I did notice the fan was going like a jet engine and was waitin for the macbook to lunch off the desk but that never happend
when checked the temp before the test it was 40 C ... during the test it was 78 C ... after the test it went down to 56 C and it stayed like that for 45 minutes on idel before it went down to 45 C
how do i know if the heat sink on my MacBooks have been replaces or not, they were both costom orderd MBs and i did wait 1 month to get them from apple website
Your Macbooks are perfectly fine. Basically the fan control does the following:
1. Keep the CPU below a certain temperature (It's 57°C or something, don't
know with the new firmware)
2. Minimum fan speed is 1500 rpm (even at 2500 rpm, you don't hear the fans, the hard drive spin and CPU noise are still louder)
So in your case the Macbook cooled down below the threshold after the test. Thenthe fans on low speed slowly cooled it down. Try out SMCFANCONTROL and play around with the slider. If you put the fans to max speed when the macbook is idling, the temperature should go below 50°C within a few seconds. Beliece it or not, the room temperature ant the heat conductivity factor of the surface your macbooks are on (wood = bad, cold metal = good) are a big factor. Lift the hinge of the Macbook up with a pack of smokes if you want good air flow :-)
nygfan80
Mar 21, 03:39 PM
this made my day. little things like this go a long way for a companies user base. Reminds me of Pixar's stint for a little girls dying request to see the movie (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5530-pixar-grants-dying-10-year-olds-wish-to-see-qupq-before-she-dies.html)
Wow, puts things in perspective.
Wow, puts things in perspective.
balamw
Sep 12, 05:45 PM
"Album Artist" tag is supposed to be for albums that have songs that are 'performed' by multiple artists, not for albums that have songs from different artists.
Yup, so for example you might have a track, "South Side" by Moby (featuring Gwen Stefani) and assign Album Artist as "Moby". It'll get files under Moby if you view the Album Artist tag, but it'll still find it if you search for Gwen Stefani.
Another example is that I have "The Best of Geroge Harrison", where half the tracks are by "The Beatles", I'd like the Album Artist to be "George Harrison", but have the individual tracks also tagges as Beatles tracks.
It is useful, but it's definitely not intended for "multiples" in the way you want it. (Me too).
B
Yup, so for example you might have a track, "South Side" by Moby (featuring Gwen Stefani) and assign Album Artist as "Moby". It'll get files under Moby if you view the Album Artist tag, but it'll still find it if you search for Gwen Stefani.
Another example is that I have "The Best of Geroge Harrison", where half the tracks are by "The Beatles", I'd like the Album Artist to be "George Harrison", but have the individual tracks also tagges as Beatles tracks.
It is useful, but it's definitely not intended for "multiples" in the way you want it. (Me too).
B