dongmin
Sep 5, 03:40 PM
Quoted from an older thread that has been left behind:
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
rstansby
Apr 19, 11:21 PM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
asdf542
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
I could go for some linguini right about now.
zenmac
Jul 15, 07:51 AM
Have anybody seen a benchmark which compares the core 2 duo with the actuall core duo?
I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.
Thanks
Masoud
I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.
Thanks
Masoud
jessica.
Mar 23, 04:39 PM
Funny how people are waffle so easily when it comes to censorship.
Jcoz
Apr 15, 12:33 PM
Cere, on page one, you DID state that TB would (a) be mac only and (b) die and you've been backtracking terribly ever since.
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
When you make a statement such as "unfortunately, also bingo" you are giving your full endorsement to that statement and you have accepted that as your own opinion with no ifs, ands or buts. In case you've forgotten, you gave your full endorsement to this quote:
Since then, you've argued that what you really meant was that PC manufacturers wont support it (without proof to back up your claims) and made poor comparisons to Firewire.
Let's compare the two for a second:
FW was pushed by Apple
TB is being pushed by Apple, but more importantly Intel (whose chips power most PCs)
FW had a high per port licensing cost
TB uses a royalty free port and support will be built into future Intel chipsets (making PC implementation virtually inevitable)
FW was slower than USB on paper, but faster in reality
TB blows USB 3.0 out of the water, both on paper and in reality
Why do you keep insisting they are the same and will share the same fate? On top of that, as I mentioned earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12392173&postcount=63) (and no one, including yourself has attempted to refute) TB isn't even a direct competitor with USB, it's more of a complimentary technology. You've done nothing in this thread but blow hot air.
Bingo! :D
JoeG4
Apr 25, 04:27 AM
Nor does having a 2400 SAT score and confusing "their" with "there", along with various other errors in his writing - which even for a forum are somewhat unacceptable lol.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
DeeEss
Mar 30, 01:03 PM
What a cunning linguist he or she would be.
:)
:)
DMann
Sep 9, 01:55 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
MacCentral posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php) a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.
The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.
MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
Wonder how the 24" iMac at 2.33GHz will fare.
MacCentral posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php) a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.
The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.
MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
Wonder how the 24" iMac at 2.33GHz will fare.
toddybody
May 3, 11:10 AM
Needs more Eyefinity.
I need more Eyefinity
http://thewebsite.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/cowbell_skit.jpg?w=347&h=312
I need more Eyefinity
http://thewebsite.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/cowbell_skit.jpg?w=347&h=312
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:15 PM
Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
you mean macdonalds?
you mean macdonalds?
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 02:54 PM
Why not just buy the DVD and save yourself the bandwidth and burn time?
Oh ok... :) you might need sarcasm tags.
Oddly enough I agree with this. I'm one of those people who prefer to have the physical copy in my hand, complete with pretty box art, etc. With this however, I just see it as another means to eventually get HD content on my HDTV. I love watching content in HD, and at this point, I don't care how I get it, just as long as I get it. :)
Oh ok... :) you might need sarcasm tags.
Oddly enough I agree with this. I'm one of those people who prefer to have the physical copy in my hand, complete with pretty box art, etc. With this however, I just see it as another means to eventually get HD content on my HDTV. I love watching content in HD, and at this point, I don't care how I get it, just as long as I get it. :)
tabaczka
Sep 5, 02:10 PM
I myself am not too excited by this...
An overpriced movie store doesn't seem like something i would ever use.
But whatever they have in their bag of tricks for streaming may prove to be worth taking a look at.
An overpriced movie store doesn't seem like something i would ever use.
But whatever they have in their bag of tricks for streaming may prove to be worth taking a look at.
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:37 AM
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Not sure this will completely stop piracy, but it will further deter it. However if you can store it on a drive without any sort of DRM. This service will do nothing for piracy.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Not sure this will completely stop piracy, but it will further deter it. However if you can store it on a drive without any sort of DRM. This service will do nothing for piracy.
foo10
Sep 9, 05:13 AM
I was thinkin of buying a C2D MBP 17" + 23" ACD, but no i've been thinking of going for a 24" iMac and later for the cheapest Macbook. It will be still some time thought, this G5 iMac is still running good for me. Maybe when Leopard is released.
hayesk
May 3, 07:09 PM
I agree with this completely.
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
And where on the MBP logic board would you like to place the second video card?
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:04 PM
If apple paid 100 million, they should then sue their lawyers for fraud. This suit would not even come close to 100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
diamond.g
May 3, 12:50 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Is TB able to have both channels send (or receive) at the same time? I am seeing that Wiki says it has 20GB/s of total BW, but that would imply that you can send data one way at 20GB/s which I didn't think was possible.
TB, according to what I understand about it, doesn't have the bandwith (single direction) to support DP 1.2.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Is TB able to have both channels send (or receive) at the same time? I am seeing that Wiki says it has 20GB/s of total BW, but that would imply that you can send data one way at 20GB/s which I didn't think was possible.
TB, according to what I understand about it, doesn't have the bandwith (single direction) to support DP 1.2.
Senbei
Sep 10, 05:48 AM
Clovertown (~November 2006) might be a build to order high end option for Mac Pro as opposed to taking the entire line to 8 cores since there are limitations with that approach including higher power consumption and higher heat output.
Tigerton (Q3 2007 ~summer 2007) is slated to be a true multi-core (quad cores in a single multi-chip module) followup to Woodcrest/Clovertown. It will also use a new platform (Caneland platform comprised of Tigerton/Dunnington and the Clarksboro chipset) which includes a higher performance dedicated high-speed interconnect that gives each processor a direct pathway to the chipset and is supposed to be much faster than the current front-side bus technology. The timing (WWDC 2007) sounds more likely for a major Mac Pro refresh where it does 8 core across the line (and Leopard will probably have a lot more optimization for that many cores).
Tigerton (Q3 2007 ~summer 2007) is slated to be a true multi-core (quad cores in a single multi-chip module) followup to Woodcrest/Clovertown. It will also use a new platform (Caneland platform comprised of Tigerton/Dunnington and the Clarksboro chipset) which includes a higher performance dedicated high-speed interconnect that gives each processor a direct pathway to the chipset and is supposed to be much faster than the current front-side bus technology. The timing (WWDC 2007) sounds more likely for a major Mac Pro refresh where it does 8 core across the line (and Leopard will probably have a lot more optimization for that many cores).
alust2013
Apr 25, 12:50 AM
I think the point is that traffic laws were made to prevent stuff like this in the first place. Had you been obeying the law, there would be no issue, other than maybe a slight annoyance for a couple minutes driving a little slow.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
LightSpeed1
Apr 24, 10:56 PM
Awesome.
TrollToddington
May 1, 12:00 AM
I wonder if the base SNB iMac will be faster than the base SNB MBP.
Roller
Sep 4, 06:53 PM
Not too many details: would this stream movies already downloaded or let you download/view simultaneously (like view on demand)?
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 12:21 AM
I actually like the idea. There could be a virtual dial on the screen like an old school phone.
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg