illa romza

I knew they wouldn't get rid of the classic. Something about just being able to put my entire music collection on one device keeps me coming back for more. The iPod touch doesn't come close to having as much storage space of the classic which is why I'll continue to keep purchasing iPod classics. And also, if I wanted a device like the iPod touch I would just buy the iPhone instead.

I think that these two quotes from Tim Cook during the last Apple quarterly call, put the nail in the coffin:

"We've got the largest app store ..."

"... iPhone's integrated approach is materially better than Android's fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSs on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different ... "

Since Apple itself uses the word generically, I don't see how anyone can argue that it's not.

From Apple's perspective, they have largest app store and it is named "App Store".

Give my home office a little tidy today. It;s nothing special as I spend about 1 hour a month in there lol.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2lu8m0o.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/2hzjrkn.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/10f2xki.jpg

It was the brain scans..




Like when your competitors can't compete on usability and applications, they talk about meaningless "features" no one actually cares about.

Like when device can be useful with poor specs. Are you talking about those iPad 2 cameras? How useful are those with their embarrassing specs?

This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???

So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.

This edition will be forever known as the light bleed model. Mine has it, only slightly annoying. But it certainly knocks down the resale value, almost forcing me to consider exchanging it. Also slightly annoying.

Obviously this is just a figment of your imagination :D After all, people like that one guy here who claims to have seen 14 iPads say that this problem does not exist.

So, quit seeing what is not there and enjoy your iPad. (facetiousness intended)

I love Apple but these Apple apologists are quite entertaining.

If there's a dual core base model after 4 September, I'll be very happy...

Roll on 5 September...

I hope the same thing, was planning on buying one to.
Is Germany going to raise their taxes ?? To how much 20% 21% Like in Belgium ... Way too high :rolleyes:

.C.They are raising from 16% to 19% starting in 2007. :(

Where else can they go? The brain, I guess?

Oh, and one more thing...
Ever get tired of listening to music? Well no more sore ears or tangled headphones....
Introducing the iThink. Join the Apple cybernetic collective today. Leave your troublesome Microsoft existence and join us in a world that just works!
Starting at just $ 999
Peace of mind.... forever
<scrolling text reads "Implants sold separately">:p

My thoughts exactly.

I'm all for the iPod, I'm happy with my 8GB red nano, but come on people, give the Zune a chance. Many of you are being petty, and I think that this is a stupid comparison.

There is only one Zune model anyway, are they comparing it to the countless models of the iPod?

Is that fair?

Are iPod Shuffles included? Is that fair, considering the price?

I can't access the link for some reason.

I respect the line about giving Zune a chance and then comparing it's success to Zune however I really don't think Zune has what it takes to come close to the iPod. The reality is the Zune looks like a 3 year old music player and it's only real selling points are the bigger screen, radio and wireless which aren't that big of a deal in the first place.

Zune is also getting in an already established and saturated digital music market with an inferior product and system for users, will it succeed? Only time will tell but there will be buyers for the Zune.

Should the Zune should get a fair comparison but the reality of business is there's nothing fair about it, Microsoft has prooven the unfair factor with Netscape, anti-Trust and Sony Rootkit time and time again.

If Zune was release 3 years ago then I would say it would outsell the iPod but the fact remains with nothing that outshines the iPod, subscription and limited file formats and playback it wont compete with the iPod or other players like the Samsung or Sandisk.

Zune is too little too late for Microsoft and really doesn't have the "wow" factor that ever I would expect for a company like Microsoft. I really do think the hot selling iPod this Xmas (or international present giving day as I like to call it) is the new Shuffle it seems everyone wants it, I have seen it sold out at quite a few stores already.

I have a huge music collection consisting of 15,648 tracks (and trust me, it's gonna grow). I bought my iPod Classic at the end of 2008. It's a 160GB model and I must say, it's the best portable mp3 player I've ever owned or used in my entire life! As for the person who said the sound quality sucks, I don't know what the hell they're smoking. Maybe they should stop using the default earphones and buy some decent ones, cause the sound quality is perfect!

I don't care about cover flow being a little laggy. With a music collection as large as mine it would be extremely counter-productive to browse through every single album, so I browse through my extensive list of artists instead, THEN chose the artist's album. Or I just stick it on shuffle and let the iPod surprise me.

They shouldn't update it either. Nowadays people are spoiled by every little gadget being packed with so many ridiculous features it's unbelievable. The classic is perfect for what it is, and you shouldn't mess with perfection otherwise you'd screw it up. If they discontinued the Classic they'd be discontinuing a legacy and I for one will not be happy.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.

Keep up that attitude and continue wondering why no one talks with you as you type on your laptop in the middle of the coffee shop across from De Anza college. Sure, you may have helped get DB2 started and you still work in a DOS window but don't blame your wife for leaving you as you worked late at night too long. How much of the money from the IPO went to family attorney and court fees?

What in the world are you talking about? He just said he thought the iPad was nice but not magical. And that he doesn't like marketing. Chill out.

We've seen it with Betamax, MiniDisc, MemoryStick, etc. Sony doesn't play well with others, they like their own formats. Heck, take a look at the Sony DRM fiasco from last year with the rootkit CDs. Do you really trust Sony to be checking in on what Blueray discs you are playing and verifying your encryption keys on a dailybasis? There are very few features in Blueray which are consumer friendly.

I'd beg to differ on that point. MemoryStick is actually doing pretty well in the market considering that the top three cards are SD, CF and MS stick. Granted they keep changing it but it is doing better then Beta, MiniDisc and MinisDisk HD(even though there are many die hard minidisk fans). Hell you even look at those multi memory card readers there is always support for MS stick. So it does look like Sony did something right there.

all i can say about this thread is MEH... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

it seems that every week there is a new fu*#ing thread about impending macbook pro updates. if you want one now - just go buy it. my macbook pro rips the socks of my g5. :eek:

if you are waiting for something special going by figures on the core2duo, it will be ripping the socks of the current macbook pro by 10 % . :rolleyes:

we are only talking seconds here - maybe your boot time will be 5 sec quicker than a current model. maybe you will be able to encode a movie 30 seconds quicker (mind you this type of operation takes minutes to complete) . are you going to specially go out and check that yours boots better than a current model one?? if you are, then well... umm - see a doctor first :p

are you really going to put the processors to the test and run them at full utilization for long periods of time to prove all these things? if you do, your macbook pro will self combust through the table, or even worse - your lap!!:eek:

finally, all of these new components that everyone is waiting for generate more heat. more ram, new video cards, and chips will generate more heat. macbook pro's are hot enough.... to accommodate all of these new hotter components, a new cooling system would need to be developed. these things take time.

i reakon there will be a minor speed bump (.3 of a Ghz mind you... :rolleyes: ) next week and a total revision at macworld in january - 90 days from now...

flame me if you wish but just sit back and think about real life scenario's where a core 2 duo will REALLY be of massive benefit to you.... santa rosa is the platform you should wait for.


aussie_geek

aussie_geek: since this upgrade is so trivial and meaningless to you ..... why do you keep reading and posting in this thread? LOL!

I've been waiting for this upgrade since Core Duo debuted in January, and I'll be up, bright and early, to order a C2D MBP in the morning! wOOt!

:D

iBorg

Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car ;)

oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing :rolleyes:


I thought this the minute the thing was demonstrated - it'll be a whole lot more than they showed, and it'll look a whole lot different too, methinks. :)

Here's the normal use of my setup. School on the pc and personal on the Mac. :)

http://homepage.mac.com/mattlike/Chally.jpg

2009 Challenger R/T

It'll take a while before B-spec becomes too slow for web surfing ;)

But there are lots of people who use the wireless for more than just web-surfing. Hell, WLAN is used at my workplace quite extensively in place of wired ethernet. That was the whole point of my comment. I (among others) use network-connectivity (wired or otherwise) for other things besides web-surfing

As to just web-surfing.... In the time of few years my internet-connection has moved from 512KB to 8MB. I could go to 12 or 24MB right now. The speed-increase has been FAST.

ideally i would expect something like the 480p HD trailers they have at apple.com, but given the size of these files (let's see 1.5 minute trailer at 480p (848x400 it says) is 40MB, so say, a 120 minute movie at similar bitrates would be 3.2 GB) you're going to have to rent it the night before you want to watch it just so it'll download, even at fast broadband speeds.

Your numbers are pretty close to acuritre. I used the Spiderman 3 trailer for my numbers. It's encoded at 421.8 KB/s (3.2953125 Mb). So for a 2 hour movie (120 minutes, or 7200 seconds) that's 3,036,960 KB which is 2.8839 GB. To downlaod in real time, you would need at least a 3-6 Mb connection since typically, you only get the bottom of the promised speed. This means my 1.5-3 Mb DSL conection would take roughly 4-5 hours to downlaod the movie. Not good!

Since we don't know the prices yet, my suggestion is that we don't touch the "jump to conclusions mat" just yet.

My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!

Most benchmarks show the difference between the 1.5 Ghz Solo and 1.66 Ghz Duo to be about 15% for single-core apps (games) and about 30% for dual-core aware apps. So not really more than 100% more performance.

That really depends on the program, on how "parallelizable" the application is.

The simplest way to think of it is like this: Let's say you have a program that first has to calculate A. Then, when it's done that, it uses the result of A to calculate B. Then, when it's done that, uses the result of B to calculate C, then C to D, and so on. That's a *serial* problem there. The calculation of B can't begin until A is done, so it doesn't matter how many processors you have running, all computation is held up on one spot.

On the other hand, let's say you have an application that needs to calculate A, B, C and D, but those four values are not dependent on each other at all. In that case, you can use four processors at the same time, to calculate all four values at the same time.

Think of it like baking a cake. You can't start putting on the icing until the cake is done baking. And you can't start baking the cake until the ingredients are all mixed together. But you can have people simultaneously getting out and measuring the ingredients.

So that problem is partially parallelizable, but the majority of its workload is a serial process.

Some software applications, just by their very nature, will never be able to do anything useful with multiple processors.

This is true, but there are still many many ways to optimize the multi-core processor that's not currently being use.

For example, I am waiting for a program to compile right now. Although I have a dual core on my computer, the compiler only compile one file at a time and usually takes about 10 min to do a full compile . If I have an 8 core computer with a multi-threaded compiler then I can cut the total time to jsut over a min + couple of seconds for linking time.

I think the main problem with muti-threading program is that it is difficult to implement, especially for coders who only knows high-level languages. Muti-threading in low-level program such as C is not easy but at least it is straight-forward. But trying to muti-thread high-level language such as VB or C# can get you into a big headace since everything is abstracted from the programmer. To do that, you need to get into unsafe code and call a bunch of DLLs, and it's easy to get memory leaks. Basically it can start to get very complicated, very quickly.

I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.

But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.

Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.

I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.

My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.

SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.

Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.

I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?

Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.

It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.

Its good that you are at least suspicious of apple's actions. There has to be a reason why apple inc still has not responded to this. BTW, before someone asks, no I do not have an android or other smart phone as they could be worse at spying than iphone.

Not this easy.

It's not so much about finding people at any moment, but knowing where they've been. And this file makes it dirt simple to find that out.



A guy in your terrorist cell claims he's not FBI, because he's never been to Washington DC. Even his phone contacts are all people nowhere near there. Yet what if his cache list says otherwise. He's probably dead.



By now, you also know that I always speak from personal experience when possible.

I was Military Intelligence and NSA in the heart of the Cold War. I did undercover field work at times. This kind of easy info is both priceless and dangerous. I've seen field officers compromised in almost every way imaginable. My scenarios are not stretches by any means.