prady16
Aug 31, 07:50 PM
The wait is getting sweeter! :)
iPadPublisher
Mar 29, 12:28 PM
You know I read these things all the time about how the Windows Phone OS is picking up steam or how many Android units there are out there... I'm not even sure anyone at Apple really cares about these numbers because we're talking about dozens of handsets using those OS's vs a single phone on iOS.
I guess the comparison is important to some people, but until Apple is also making nine different phones, the numbers will never stack up. So what.
I guess the comparison is important to some people, but until Apple is also making nine different phones, the numbers will never stack up. So what.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:23 PM
Amen. the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?
Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.
I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?
Dear God, please check your info before posting. We have many GSM carriers, and you can buy certain CDMA phones and use them on a different CDMA network. And you were talking about international roaming in other posts, well, we have that, here. Even CDMA that you bash so much has roaming options. My brother is using a dual CDMA/GSM phone on Sprint right now in London. And the international roaming rates are cheaper with US carriers compared to Vodafone Australia, depending on countries. We also have 3G CDMA and GSM based Cingular uses W-CDMA, so you're not the only ones there, either.
Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.
I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?
Dear God, please check your info before posting. We have many GSM carriers, and you can buy certain CDMA phones and use them on a different CDMA network. And you were talking about international roaming in other posts, well, we have that, here. Even CDMA that you bash so much has roaming options. My brother is using a dual CDMA/GSM phone on Sprint right now in London. And the international roaming rates are cheaper with US carriers compared to Vodafone Australia, depending on countries. We also have 3G CDMA and GSM based Cingular uses W-CDMA, so you're not the only ones there, either.
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.
Alvi
May 3, 11:01 AM
That's nice from Apple, I personally find the Magic Mouse useless for what I do, it's just a nice toy. And a Trackpad would be more useful just for the Multitouch Gestures in combination with a Real Mouse
markcres
Apr 20, 11:56 AM
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Steve Jobs has become that which he once reviled.
Apple is the new fascism....
Steve Jobs has become that which he once reviled.
Apple is the new fascism....
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:35 PM
First, no I made no such claim. I responded to one. And the claim wasn't that it will be restricted to being Mac only, but that it will end up being Mac only, in the same sense that FW is. Some PC ship with FW, but not many. It is considered a Mac only interface. The gist is that TB may as well, if history repeats. You didn't prove anything. You see many PC's shipping with TB right now? How many PC vendors have announces support for TB? The unfortunate fact is that consumers know the USB brand, so the vendors will support it. TB might be in Intel's spec, but that doesn't mean every system will support it nor that many drive vendors will either. No. The claim simply stated 'Mac only'. Nothing more and nothing less and you agreed with said two word claim. Thunderbolt will be integrated into every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0. It's not the same situation as FireWire in the slightest. Not only is it faster than USB 3.0 but it also works with USB via adapters as well as almost any other IO on the planet. FireWire worked only with FireWire devices.
See econgeek's post. It explains is pretty well.
You mean the one right above your post that proves you wrong? Funny stuff.
See econgeek's post. It explains is pretty well.
You mean the one right above your post that proves you wrong? Funny stuff.
gnasher729
Mar 30, 11:37 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Windows is a trademark. Microsoft sued Lindows because of the similarity, then ended up paying them $20,000,000 to go away when it looked as if Microsoft could lose the trademark. And Apple owns "App Store". Microsoft just wants to use the name.
And a company named ContainerStore owns the trademark on the word "Container Store" !!!!
That linguist obviously says what Microsoft wants him to say. Which is the truth, but not the whole truth. The whole truth would mention that the term "App Store" was not used by anyone before Apple used it and wouldn't be used by anyone if Apple hadn't used it.
Windows is a trademark. Microsoft sued Lindows because of the similarity, then ended up paying them $20,000,000 to go away when it looked as if Microsoft could lose the trademark. And Apple owns "App Store". Microsoft just wants to use the name.
And a company named ContainerStore owns the trademark on the word "Container Store" !!!!
That linguist obviously says what Microsoft wants him to say. Which is the truth, but not the whole truth. The whole truth would mention that the term "App Store" was not used by anyone before Apple used it and wouldn't be used by anyone if Apple hadn't used it.
joel8x
Aug 28, 09:11 PM
Sorry to crash the party, but it would seem a little strange for Apple to upgrade the MacBook and/or MB Pro's until sometime after the 16th when their current college promotion ends. Promotion = clearing out old stock (of notebooks & iPods).
Keep your mom's credit card in her purse for a few more weeks.
Keep your mom's credit card in her purse for a few more weeks.
teme
Oct 13, 02:47 AM
I think the red color is so much better than the other current Nano colors (pink, blue, green). It looks great... if they release a red MacBook, I might buy it. I don't need a red Nano right now.
asdf542
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
kyjaotkb
Apr 22, 03:26 AM
Buffer times and connection loss could be eliminated as problems very easily:
When you load a playlist, your iPhone begins to download all the songs immediately in the background. Since a song is only a few megabytes, several songs could be downloaded in the span of one song during playback. These songs are then cached in a pre-determined sized local library and kept there until needed to make room for new incoming songs. A smart system could be employed to determine songs that should be prioritized to be kept in cache based on playcount and other listening patterns.
In an iPhone with 32GB of flash, a few GB of music could be cached without taking much room yet storing massive amounts of songs without the risk of interruption from slow or loss of connection.
.
then it will cause battery issues. Have you ever seen how much faster battery drains while using 3G continuously ?
And responsiveness issue. yes you can already use an iPhone while downloading / updating apps but it's gonna be slower. CoreAnimation will be choppy. And battery will suffer, too.
Whereas locally stored MP3 playing won't harm your iPhone at all and lets you multi-task like a charm and enjoy what makes the iPhone the iPhone : instant responsiveness.
I see iTunes library sharing over wifi working already very badly, it's most of the time unusable at home for audio. Forget about video... So just also forget about streaming from the internet using 3G. Moreover, about 50% of the time, my iPhone gets only Edge and no 3G (Bouygues Telecom, France).
And maybe the biggest issue : I listen to my music while commuting. And basically, there's barely a voice-enabled network 60% of the time. Nothing 30% of the time and Edge 10%. Nothing else (I commute with the tube in Paris). So any cloud-enabled music is DOA for me. I already have Mobile Me and Dropbox for that. Doesn't work practically for me.
So I don't call this cloud thing a revolution, rather a gmmick at best, and ******** for my actual needs.
But maybe, in some better-covered areas, with lucky people with a 100% 3G signal enabled all the time, that'll work...
Well, that was just my 2 cents !
When you load a playlist, your iPhone begins to download all the songs immediately in the background. Since a song is only a few megabytes, several songs could be downloaded in the span of one song during playback. These songs are then cached in a pre-determined sized local library and kept there until needed to make room for new incoming songs. A smart system could be employed to determine songs that should be prioritized to be kept in cache based on playcount and other listening patterns.
In an iPhone with 32GB of flash, a few GB of music could be cached without taking much room yet storing massive amounts of songs without the risk of interruption from slow or loss of connection.
.
then it will cause battery issues. Have you ever seen how much faster battery drains while using 3G continuously ?
And responsiveness issue. yes you can already use an iPhone while downloading / updating apps but it's gonna be slower. CoreAnimation will be choppy. And battery will suffer, too.
Whereas locally stored MP3 playing won't harm your iPhone at all and lets you multi-task like a charm and enjoy what makes the iPhone the iPhone : instant responsiveness.
I see iTunes library sharing over wifi working already very badly, it's most of the time unusable at home for audio. Forget about video... So just also forget about streaming from the internet using 3G. Moreover, about 50% of the time, my iPhone gets only Edge and no 3G (Bouygues Telecom, France).
And maybe the biggest issue : I listen to my music while commuting. And basically, there's barely a voice-enabled network 60% of the time. Nothing 30% of the time and Edge 10%. Nothing else (I commute with the tube in Paris). So any cloud-enabled music is DOA for me. I already have Mobile Me and Dropbox for that. Doesn't work practically for me.
So I don't call this cloud thing a revolution, rather a gmmick at best, and ******** for my actual needs.
But maybe, in some better-covered areas, with lucky people with a 100% 3G signal enabled all the time, that'll work...
Well, that was just my 2 cents !
retroactiv
Mar 29, 12:09 PM
I'm pretty sure he was referring to cut and paste in finder and "windows snap" is where you can snap two windows side by side easily- it is a great feature in W7 and I hope Apple incorporate it in some way.
Exactly. Apple needs to implement both of those features. They are not dealbreakers, but the make the experience more complete.
I use Hyperdock to enable the "window snap"... great app. And another app to allow files to be copy-pasted... can't remember the name of it though... available in Mac App Store.
Exactly. Apple needs to implement both of those features. They are not dealbreakers, but the make the experience more complete.
I use Hyperdock to enable the "window snap"... great app. And another app to allow files to be copy-pasted... can't remember the name of it though... available in Mac App Store.
Tailpike1153
Mar 30, 01:45 PM
You'll find Microsoft's reason to sue Apple is here (http://phone.microsoftplatformready.com/Dashboard.aspx). Guess Microsoft is protecting itself from a legal butt kicking by being preemptive.
syklee26
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
can someone tell me how to do that quick scroll thingee? i get it sorta randomly.
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:15 PM
Absolutely perfect design? Not even close.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
rockthecasbah
Sep 19, 02:57 PM
Personally, I'm not interested in buying movies for myself; I don't really like watching on the computer or iPod screen so i may as well buy the disk version of the movie and be happier on a larger screen :) . To those that are using it and enjoy, that's great. I just feel like there are many more people like me that will prefer to have physical movie versus a "digital" counterpart. Songs just seem more petty and i feel more comfortable downloading them, but movies... meh.
Chundles
Aug 31, 09:56 PM
Whats the issue with regards to TV shows only available to the USA. Why can't they be made available in the UK and Europe.
Different regions, different distributors and laws.
Different regions, different distributors and laws.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
xionxiox
Apr 4, 11:56 AM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
The robbers were armed and dangerous. So yes, it was necessary.
No
The robbers were armed and dangerous. So yes, it was necessary.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:21 PM
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 04:42 PM
Am Encoding H.264 Baseline Profile 640x480 To Test Old 5G Compatability. Takes much longer. Will report success or failure when it's done in another 35 minutes - about 3:15pm Pacific.
iPod 1.2 update software made no mention of this newer H.264 maximum dimension feature. If it works it means a whole new paradigm for Video iPods. The 320x240 pixel restriction for H.264 to date made it a highly unattractive codec to use. Now it's a whole new ballgame if it works. HDTV May be encoded 640x360 max in H.264 for a much better encode. Crossing my fingers this will work. Please pray with me now. ;)
Encoded H.264 Baseline Profile 640x480 Fails 2 Load On Old 5G
iPod 1.2 update software made no mention of this newer H.264 maximum dimension feature. If it works it means a whole new paradigm for Video iPods. The 320x240 pixel restriction for H.264 to date made it a highly unattractive codec to use. Now it's a whole new ballgame if it works. HDTV May be encoded 640x360 max in H.264 for a much better encode. Crossing my fingers this will work. Please pray with me now. ;)
Encoded H.264 Baseline Profile 640x480 Fails 2 Load On Old 5G
KilGil27
Sep 19, 02:40 PM
This is fairly remarkable, considering that the really only viable place to watch these movies is on an iPod! Yes, you can watch it on your iMac, or on your television hooked to a Mac Mini.
or... any other computer you wanted to...
or... any other computer you wanted to...
cube
Apr 22, 07:10 PM
- Thunderbolt is not replacing USBs, it's a supplement to DisplayPort (and can connect to both display and peripherals simultaneously)
Thunderbolt is not a supplement to DisplayPort. It is a downgrade to DisplayPort.
Thunderbolt is not a supplement to DisplayPort. It is a downgrade to DisplayPort.