Chupa Chupa
Apr 11, 07:51 AM
I'm sure the idiot fanboys will buy it no matter what, but people like myself (who actually make a living and want reliable, efficient software) are ready to leave.
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:13 PM
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
dmunz
Apr 8, 07:46 AM
Have you ever seen an RZ coupon that didn't say "excludes Apple products" along with Bose and a number of other carveouts. Financing may be a different issue.
B
That is a good point, but it never seems to stop them from taking the coupon. Maybe I've just been lucky there,
FWIW
DLM
B
That is a good point, but it never seems to stop them from taking the coupon. Maybe I've just been lucky there,
FWIW
DLM
TangoCharlie
Jul 21, 05:59 AM
ANy gurus on hand here..
is it possible that Apple will come out with dual woocrest then when kentfield hits the street, we could just buy the processor and snap out woody and snap in Kentfield.
IS THIS FEASIBLE:rolleyes:
No. Kentsfield will be an LGA775 (same as P4, Conroe), whereas the Woodcrest is an LGA771 (Xeon), so, no you will not be able to pop a Kentsfield into the Woodcrests' socket.
However, Cloverto[w]n will be an LGA771, so you'll be able (in theory) to pop one (or two!) Clovertown based Xeons into your brand new HP xw8400 oops, Apple Mac Pro and watch as your case melts. :confused:
is it possible that Apple will come out with dual woocrest then when kentfield hits the street, we could just buy the processor and snap out woody and snap in Kentfield.
IS THIS FEASIBLE:rolleyes:
No. Kentsfield will be an LGA775 (same as P4, Conroe), whereas the Woodcrest is an LGA771 (Xeon), so, no you will not be able to pop a Kentsfield into the Woodcrests' socket.
However, Cloverto[w]n will be an LGA771, so you'll be able (in theory) to pop one (or two!) Clovertown based Xeons into your brand new HP xw8400 oops, Apple Mac Pro and watch as your case melts. :confused:
yg17
Mar 4, 07:51 AM
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
Source?
:rolleyes:
Source?
:rolleyes:
Skika
Mar 26, 08:00 AM
Will it have a new theme? I think its really time for aqua to be put to rest and something new comes along.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 05:21 PM
The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware.
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
Or software...bye-bye Rosetta. :(
samcraig
Apr 25, 04:06 PM
1. the lawsuit may have merit HOWEVER - the restitution being sought is silly because I am sure that the two people suing could have or still could return their devices for a refund or store credit.
2. If this was a suit brought up against Google for the same thing - those defending Apple would be ripping Google (or anyone else) a new one. But clearly because it's Apple being targeted it's a witch hunt?
3.the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue. Steve flat out said so. He said that ALL phones have an issue. That doesn't negate the iPhone having one. Oh - but this was LONG after his email to me (and others) that there was NO issue. Backpeddled on that one only after Consumer Reports refused to give the iPhone a good review. Suddenly there was a press conference and finger pointing (poorly) at every other phone manufacturer
I suspect the same will happen here. Apple will be in the cross hairs. Justifiably or not. And when push comes to shove - they will throw anyone and everyone under the bus (ATT, Google, etc) for doing the same thing.
2. If this was a suit brought up against Google for the same thing - those defending Apple would be ripping Google (or anyone else) a new one. But clearly because it's Apple being targeted it's a witch hunt?
3.the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue. Steve flat out said so. He said that ALL phones have an issue. That doesn't negate the iPhone having one. Oh - but this was LONG after his email to me (and others) that there was NO issue. Backpeddled on that one only after Consumer Reports refused to give the iPhone a good review. Suddenly there was a press conference and finger pointing (poorly) at every other phone manufacturer
I suspect the same will happen here. Apple will be in the cross hairs. Justifiably or not. And when push comes to shove - they will throw anyone and everyone under the bus (ATT, Google, etc) for doing the same thing.
evil89
Mar 31, 04:32 PM
That's ridiculous.. If It was for HTC, my Hero would have it's support blocked in a 2.1 buggish system with a daylong battery life.. Thanks to "cooked" rom I've 2.3 Gingerbread with an overclocked phone, terminal access and 5 day of battery...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
Stupid.. stupid move indeed...
bilbo--baggins
Nov 29, 07:33 AM
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
fivepoint
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
trailer for Harry Potter .
Deathly Hallows Part 2 Trailer
harry potter and the deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Harry+potter+7+part+2+
harry potter and the deathly
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
carlos700
Aug 7, 11:24 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
Eventually (i.e. by November), Core 2 Duo/Woodcrest across he board:
1) Mac mini: 2 models both with the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo
2) iMac: 2 models with 1.86 GHz and 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo
3) Mac Pro: 4 models; 2 Core 2 Duo-based systems (2.40 GHz and 2.66 GHz) and 2 Xeon-based systems (2.80 GHz and 3.0 GHz). The higher-end Xeon systems would sport the same enclosure as the Core 2 Duo systems (similar to the PM G5) but would come in an anodized charcoal black enclosure.
Any takers?
-Squire
Well, most of that looks good except that there is no 2.8GHz Woodcrest.
Eventually (i.e. by November), Core 2 Duo/Woodcrest across he board:
1) Mac mini: 2 models both with the 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo
2) iMac: 2 models with 1.86 GHz and 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo
3) Mac Pro: 4 models; 2 Core 2 Duo-based systems (2.40 GHz and 2.66 GHz) and 2 Xeon-based systems (2.80 GHz and 3.0 GHz). The higher-end Xeon systems would sport the same enclosure as the Core 2 Duo systems (similar to the PM G5) but would come in an anodized charcoal black enclosure.
Any takers?
-Squire
Well, most of that looks good except that there is no 2.8GHz Woodcrest.
uv23
Jul 31, 12:07 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
afields
Aug 5, 06:02 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I agree with this. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a leopard preview and mac pro announced. Remember....It's always less than you expect. I would be absolutely *shocked* if anything iphone or ipod related is announced.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I agree with this. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a leopard preview and mac pro announced. Remember....It's always less than you expect. I would be absolutely *shocked* if anything iphone or ipod related is announced.
Sgt.Meow
Apr 6, 01:35 PM
Under the hood it got all the bell and whistle, but the app market has not enough tablet optimized app to back it up. Some app just crash or won't open. And last time I check, they haven't release an update to allow the use to micro SDHC card yet.
Xoom = DOA, Android = still fragmented
Xoom = DOA, Android = still fragmented
CrackedButter
Aug 26, 02:42 AM
I've owned 4 macs.
First a G3 iBook, then a G4 AluBook, then an eMac and now I'm on a G4 iBook.
NEVER had a problem with any of the machines. They have been great. Just to let you know it isn't all bad. I also pay for .mac and have done for 2 years now. I'm happy with it and yes I get spam but the filter is very good and its hardly an issue for me.
First a G3 iBook, then a G4 AluBook, then an eMac and now I'm on a G4 iBook.
NEVER had a problem with any of the machines. They have been great. Just to let you know it isn't all bad. I also pay for .mac and have done for 2 years now. I'm happy with it and yes I get spam but the filter is very good and its hardly an issue for me.
mBox
Apr 8, 11:19 PM
Careful, some trolls will insist that your opinion is only relevant to your narrow world view and that you need itemized spreadsheets to prove that you know what you're talking about.The positive is that all the other mentioned apps are Apple capable :)
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:10 PM
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
We have a lot of couch lawyers in this group. :rolleyes:
mrsir2009
Apr 6, 02:10 PM
Good for them.
GFLPraxis
Aug 11, 10:39 AM
These iPhone rumours continue to persist. I admit to being a sceptic, but maybe I'm wrong! I just hope that if they do do it, they do it well.
The Intel Mac rumors persisted too.
The Intel Mac rumors persisted too.
Gamoe
Mar 31, 06:43 PM
Open doesn't necessarily mean "supported". All it means is that the source code is available and you can do whatever you want with it (as long as you keep that same source open as well). If some other group or company wants to take on and support an Android variant, they can do so and support it with updates. As far as I understand open source licences, Google can't prevent this.
On the other hand, Google has no obligation to support every single variant out there, or put the Google stamp on something they don't approve because of quality, compatibility, consistency or any number of other concerns. That said, withholding the Honeycomb source may be stretching it.
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
On the other hand, Google has no obligation to support every single variant out there, or put the Google stamp on something they don't approve because of quality, compatibility, consistency or any number of other concerns. That said, withholding the Honeycomb source may be stretching it.
If you're going to licence your project as open source, then you do actually have to release the source. I know there's often a delay with commercial products. I suppose the tolerance of the open source community depends on the reason and the amount of time the code is held back.
wmmk
Jul 14, 03:09 PM
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
:dools: whoa, that'd be lovely. would they both also accept normal DVDs and CDs?
:dools: whoa, that'd be lovely. would they both also accept normal DVDs and CDs?
Digitaljim
Nov 28, 08:05 PM
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
No comments:
Post a Comment