Westside guy
Sep 14, 10:59 AM
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
If you'd followed the dSLR world at all over the past two years, you wouldn't ask this question. :) Canon and Nikon are doing well; most everyone else is dropping like flies. Sony is trying to pick up the pieces that were Konica-Minolta's dSLR business, but at best they're going to be a distant third behind the Big Two. Pentax and Olympus are holding on as far as I know, but they are not doing well.
It would be a very poor move for Apple, and I have no doubt they realize this. You might think Apple has a rabid fan base to draw on - go read any "Nikon vs. Canon" thread on any photo discussion board sometime to see REAL rabidity. :D
If you'd followed the dSLR world at all over the past two years, you wouldn't ask this question. :) Canon and Nikon are doing well; most everyone else is dropping like flies. Sony is trying to pick up the pieces that were Konica-Minolta's dSLR business, but at best they're going to be a distant third behind the Big Two. Pentax and Olympus are holding on as far as I know, but they are not doing well.
It would be a very poor move for Apple, and I have no doubt they realize this. You might think Apple has a rabid fan base to draw on - go read any "Nikon vs. Canon" thread on any photo discussion board sometime to see REAL rabidity. :D
bigpics
Mar 29, 03:51 PM
Smartphones will be obsolete by 2015. Telepathy is the future of telecommunications :p :DYou're being sarcastic of course, but telecommunication behind the ear chip implants by 2020-25, and the full "Borg experience" 10-15 years after that (which if Apple's the leader would make us "iBorgs," now that's an actually possible real story.
(Implanted phones were predicted, btw, in a '60's James Coburn action/spy movie "The President's Analyst." Now THAT's a long-term projection....)
(Implanted phones were predicted, btw, in a '60's James Coburn action/spy movie "The President's Analyst." Now THAT's a long-term projection....)
cube
May 3, 11:55 AM
Any instances and hardware where this is carried out?
You can hook 3+3 displays from some AMD 6000-series PCIe cards. I am not sure if it also works for 4+2 or 5+1, which would allow for different screen configurations (eg: 4x24"+2x30" or 5xSmaller+1x30"3D).
You can hook 3+3 displays from some AMD 6000-series PCIe cards. I am not sure if it also works for 4+2 or 5+1, which would allow for different screen configurations (eg: 4x24"+2x30" or 5xSmaller+1x30"3D).
Uragon
Mar 30, 01:08 PM
The real question is why MS is so bothered about Apple using 'App Store'. Historically MS (almost) never used the word App, instead using the word Programs. Surely MS can come up with many alternatives that describe their own store equally well, if not better. Why fight with Apple over this? I can only conclude that it is to spite Apple, or to ride Apple's coat tails yet again.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
Completely agree with you. Not sure why Microsoft making this a BIG deal.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
Completely agree with you. Not sure why Microsoft making this a BIG deal.
erikistired
Sep 19, 05:02 PM
As I stated in a few posts up I'm not that happy with the pricing of the iTunes Movies, but, if I were to buy any I would quickly run into a huge problem - STORAGE! I have an iBook with 60 GB drive and it's almost full from other stuff.
Apple should come out with a home storage network server with RAID, etc.
that's my hold back right now. i just don't have space for movies on my powerbook, and putting them on external media wouldn't make sense, at that point i could just toss a dvd or two in my backpack.
Apple should come out with a home storage network server with RAID, etc.
that's my hold back right now. i just don't have space for movies on my powerbook, and putting them on external media wouldn't make sense, at that point i could just toss a dvd or two in my backpack.
Ranks
Sep 14, 09:22 AM
Does this option in the iTunes7 intaller hint at the imminent release of the iPhone?
http://idisk.mac.com/rnks/Public/iPhone-option.jpg
http://idisk.mac.com/rnks/Public/iPhone-option.jpg
taxiapple
Apr 4, 12:08 PM
It is not like a mall rent a cop went up and shot the suspect in the head.
Two of them were armed and 40 shots were exchanged.
one bad guy is dead and two were captured.
Two of them were armed and 40 shots were exchanged.
one bad guy is dead and two were captured.
G4DP
Mar 22, 01:30 PM
Glad all the consumers machines get this first. All the kinks can be worked out before the MacPro gets it at the end of the year.
LaCie have started making drives etc with Cripplepeak connectivity. There are a few others.
LaCie have started making drives etc with Cripplepeak connectivity. There are a few others.
appleguy
Sep 4, 08:35 PM
Stick to the cables, you need 802.11n minimum to do this and it will kill your home network. Nobody else at home can do anything else.
Well if its your network. screw everyone else I say. lol:cool:
Well if its your network. screw everyone else I say. lol:cool:
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
KingCrimson
Apr 30, 09:09 PM
^^^^
Yeah I forgot about the Kinect. Maybe MSFT is finally breaking out of that rut.
Yeah I forgot about the Kinect. Maybe MSFT is finally breaking out of that rut.
macfan881
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wasting breath on a comment like this isn't even worth it.
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
although i agree with u techicly u just did i dont know why im replying lol but i liked all the stuff i mean if ur a Video Quailty Freak go get a dvd and play it on your tv if ur just a average movie watcher like me i think this is great and i hope to see more companys on itunes as well
asdf542
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
EagerBatucada
Apr 25, 06:03 PM
Suppose it is liquid metal? How do you suppose the currently 0.50 stock LQMT (Liquid Metal Technologies) will react?
ehoui
Apr 30, 01:31 PM
Why do they want OS X users to feel as if we were on an iPad!!!???
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Anger management is a good thing.
Mac-Addict
Aug 31, 06:35 PM
or maybe just maybe...
Apple is bringing out a new desktop! I mean think about it they haven't really bought out a new desktop for agess all they have done is switch all products to intel.
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
Apple is bringing out a new desktop! I mean think about it they haven't really bought out a new desktop for agess all they have done is switch all products to intel.
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
Eidorian
Jul 20, 01:22 PM
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
jonnysods
Mar 30, 12:32 PM
MS: Spend some money on R&D
mr.suff
Sep 18, 04:45 PM
By definition, 10MP phone cannot be as grainy as a 3MP phone. You do realize when someone says 10MegaPixel phone what they mean right?.
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).
its not 10 million pixels per square inch. 10 million pixels is the overall size of the image ie x by y, at about 150-300 dpi, i think, but its defo not 10mp per inch^2
but anything above 3-5 mp in a phone becomes a useless waste because the sensor is stupid small.
matt
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).
its not 10 million pixels per square inch. 10 million pixels is the overall size of the image ie x by y, at about 150-300 dpi, i think, but its defo not 10mp per inch^2
but anything above 3-5 mp in a phone becomes a useless waste because the sensor is stupid small.
matt
vvebsta
Mar 23, 05:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
spriter
Sep 9, 02:08 AM
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
Nomadski
Apr 17, 05:31 PM
Sonos is far from dead, been alive and kicking in my house since and will do so far beyond whenever AppleTV5 gets discontinued I'm sure... The market will always have a space for alternatives to Apple, especially when something as hated (by a large number of people) as iTunes is integral to the system. There is nothing more closed and proprietary than Apples system, and save for a couple of lovely products Ive bought into (macbook and iphone) its something I refuse to invest any further in. Sonos delivers without giving any bellyaches or limitations that require workarounds, and their service has just got more expansive with time without cutting any hardware out of the loop, even that released in 2005 - With Apple you'd be lucky for something release 2 years ago to be fully supported with latest features.
And Magnus, I dont have to muck about with any router settings like channels because it gets plugged in and works, I dont NEED to know much about networking because it just works. It doesnt share ANY bandwidth with my wireless network so I have no idea why your banging on about your router. Never experienced interference / breakup in sound / loss of sync whatever else is happening on my network, because its totally independant, and the system is designed to avoid precisely the crappy problems products like AppleTV can easily suffer from. A quick google tells me its NOT the same on AppleTV, lots of forum posts talking about echoes and out of sync music distribution so you can stick that one where the sun dont shine.
Also my "blind test" with lossless vs lossy very clearly showed a difference in sound quality, hence why I dont touch iTunes catalogue of music with a bargepole. You seem to know that the speaker setup make a massive difference to sound (something I have to explain to people everyday regarding quality of headphones vs choice of mp3 player, in that the latter makes FA difference in comparison to the former) so Im surprised you take such little stock in lossless - a better sound system will only exemplify the difference in quality between FLAC (or ALAC) and the highest bitrate MP3.
BTW you can play FLAC on iPhone...sounds lovely, although I agree capacity is an issue at the moment.
"Apple TV 1 came with 120GB and 320GB drives and can use any 2.5 drive. It can also use any external USB2 drive (including a 3TB drive) once hacked"
Great. We are talking about AppleTV2, the latest and greatest. They took it out. You have no hard drive. To do all the stuff you go on about you need XBMC running, presumably on a PC or Mac? Or are you also using workarounds on the Apple hardware to make it as useful as the popcorn is out of the box? Couldnt be bothered myself with all the hassle, ive been using my PH for 4 years with all the functionality you have had for the last few months after mucking about with it. I would bet the majority of the great unwashed masses who bought AppleTV 2 don't use XBMC on it, so stop even comparing your modified unit with the masses experience with it.
How is that? You kept touting it doesn't need a networked PC and now you're touting that it can work with one It doesnt NEED to use a pc, but it CAN if I WANT it to. It doesnt NEED a NAS but it CAN if I want it to. It doesnt have to use internet streaming services like Napster or spotify or Last.FM but it can if I want it to. It doesnt NEED iTunes but it CAN use it if I wanted to use iTunes. I dont HAVE to use FLAC, I can use ALAC if I want. Its called choice, out of the box, zero configuration.
My experience of itunes purely with my one IOS device (iPhone) tells me you can go ahead with this BS system, but I for one much prefer having something which offers alternatives as well as crappy iTunes.
And for one who calls BS on audiophile equipment, you certainly have invested a lot into that BS. Your BS system is quite impressive, shame you skimped on the delivery system.
Re the video, if you cant tell the difference between 1080P vs 720P even on a 42" (Panasonic plasma here too) then you need your eyes testing. My wife has bad eyesight and even she sees the difference between 1080P vs 720P, whereas she just thinks 720P looks "brighter" than standard def...
But whatever, keep on rolling, im still far happier ive got the best multi room music delivery system money can buy. And a separate video player which streams and stores anything without BS conversion / tweaks.
And Magnus, I dont have to muck about with any router settings like channels because it gets plugged in and works, I dont NEED to know much about networking because it just works. It doesnt share ANY bandwidth with my wireless network so I have no idea why your banging on about your router. Never experienced interference / breakup in sound / loss of sync whatever else is happening on my network, because its totally independant, and the system is designed to avoid precisely the crappy problems products like AppleTV can easily suffer from. A quick google tells me its NOT the same on AppleTV, lots of forum posts talking about echoes and out of sync music distribution so you can stick that one where the sun dont shine.
Also my "blind test" with lossless vs lossy very clearly showed a difference in sound quality, hence why I dont touch iTunes catalogue of music with a bargepole. You seem to know that the speaker setup make a massive difference to sound (something I have to explain to people everyday regarding quality of headphones vs choice of mp3 player, in that the latter makes FA difference in comparison to the former) so Im surprised you take such little stock in lossless - a better sound system will only exemplify the difference in quality between FLAC (or ALAC) and the highest bitrate MP3.
BTW you can play FLAC on iPhone...sounds lovely, although I agree capacity is an issue at the moment.
"Apple TV 1 came with 120GB and 320GB drives and can use any 2.5 drive. It can also use any external USB2 drive (including a 3TB drive) once hacked"
Great. We are talking about AppleTV2, the latest and greatest. They took it out. You have no hard drive. To do all the stuff you go on about you need XBMC running, presumably on a PC or Mac? Or are you also using workarounds on the Apple hardware to make it as useful as the popcorn is out of the box? Couldnt be bothered myself with all the hassle, ive been using my PH for 4 years with all the functionality you have had for the last few months after mucking about with it. I would bet the majority of the great unwashed masses who bought AppleTV 2 don't use XBMC on it, so stop even comparing your modified unit with the masses experience with it.
How is that? You kept touting it doesn't need a networked PC and now you're touting that it can work with one It doesnt NEED to use a pc, but it CAN if I WANT it to. It doesnt NEED a NAS but it CAN if I want it to. It doesnt have to use internet streaming services like Napster or spotify or Last.FM but it can if I want it to. It doesnt NEED iTunes but it CAN use it if I wanted to use iTunes. I dont HAVE to use FLAC, I can use ALAC if I want. Its called choice, out of the box, zero configuration.
My experience of itunes purely with my one IOS device (iPhone) tells me you can go ahead with this BS system, but I for one much prefer having something which offers alternatives as well as crappy iTunes.
And for one who calls BS on audiophile equipment, you certainly have invested a lot into that BS. Your BS system is quite impressive, shame you skimped on the delivery system.
Re the video, if you cant tell the difference between 1080P vs 720P even on a 42" (Panasonic plasma here too) then you need your eyes testing. My wife has bad eyesight and even she sees the difference between 1080P vs 720P, whereas she just thinks 720P looks "brighter" than standard def...
But whatever, keep on rolling, im still far happier ive got the best multi room music delivery system money can buy. And a separate video player which streams and stores anything without BS conversion / tweaks.
alust2013
Apr 24, 11:47 PM
It's unsafe to drive the SPEED LIMIT in the left lane because of people who drive so fast. If anyone tailgates me, I just slow down. That said, I don't drive in the left lane except to pass.
Squire
Sep 3, 07:13 PM
This may be a really dumb question, but when the new MBP comes out, do y'all think it'll stay aroudn the same price range or increase?:confused:
I'd guess stay the same or maybe even decrease depending on the price Apple gets on Merom chips.
-Squire
I'd guess stay the same or maybe even decrease depending on the price Apple gets on Merom chips.
-Squire
