iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:11 PM
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
somemacuser
Apr 5, 11:04 PM
Was a MSFT user since DOS. Switched about 2.5 years ago. I'd concur with the few gripes already listed in here that are a bit of a change for windows users - my favorites (quitting applications isnt alt-f4 anymore, cmd-tab doesnt cycle windows, not being able to launch multiple occurrences of an application, giving up the ability to repair my imac myself, and the lack of a PC-like "delete" key instead of the backspace delete that's on the wireless keyboard - WTF!).
However, for the few things that were a change for me, I discover new stuff seemingly every week that makes me smile at the thoughtfulness that has been put into the Mac/OSX. Hard to list them all, but the sum of them makes the whole experience SO well done. A few weeks after getting the Mac I was ticked I waited so long to cut over. It was a non issue. I didnt make the leap until I was satisfied parallels would still be a viable option to run XP. It works great, but I never use it other than to show people a mac can run windows. :) OSX is so stable, smooth (scrolling, transitions, etc.), beautiful hardware, and elegant to work in I had no desire to go back. I am well aware that Windows 7 has come a long way, but its *still* not as thoughtfully designed.
As has been said many times on this site, ultimately, you can accomplish the same stuff on a PC, but its not as pleasant or easy to get there. As I get older and have less free time in my life with family/career, I appreciate just getting what I want out of the computer and not tinkering. I've done a 180 from my earlier days of taking some pleasure in reformatting a pc and reinstalling windows clean. Now my time spent fiddling is learning cool stuff in aperture and imovie. And I am constantly amazed at the quality of the output vs. the time invested.
Its hard not to be a raving fan of a tool that is that is so enjoyable to use, gives pleasure when you just look at the damn thing, and gives a meaningful return on time spent "learning" it. But my needs may be different than yours. 15 years ago I pounded code for a living and scoffed at apple stuff. Today my way of making a living and my priorities in life are very different. The mac is the right choice for me even if I cant close an application in one click from the corner.
However, for the few things that were a change for me, I discover new stuff seemingly every week that makes me smile at the thoughtfulness that has been put into the Mac/OSX. Hard to list them all, but the sum of them makes the whole experience SO well done. A few weeks after getting the Mac I was ticked I waited so long to cut over. It was a non issue. I didnt make the leap until I was satisfied parallels would still be a viable option to run XP. It works great, but I never use it other than to show people a mac can run windows. :) OSX is so stable, smooth (scrolling, transitions, etc.), beautiful hardware, and elegant to work in I had no desire to go back. I am well aware that Windows 7 has come a long way, but its *still* not as thoughtfully designed.
As has been said many times on this site, ultimately, you can accomplish the same stuff on a PC, but its not as pleasant or easy to get there. As I get older and have less free time in my life with family/career, I appreciate just getting what I want out of the computer and not tinkering. I've done a 180 from my earlier days of taking some pleasure in reformatting a pc and reinstalling windows clean. Now my time spent fiddling is learning cool stuff in aperture and imovie. And I am constantly amazed at the quality of the output vs. the time invested.
Its hard not to be a raving fan of a tool that is that is so enjoyable to use, gives pleasure when you just look at the damn thing, and gives a meaningful return on time spent "learning" it. But my needs may be different than yours. 15 years ago I pounded code for a living and scoffed at apple stuff. Today my way of making a living and my priorities in life are very different. The mac is the right choice for me even if I cant close an application in one click from the corner.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
adamfilip
Sep 26, 07:37 AM
im hoping that apple has optimized leopard to be able to assign certain applications to certain cores. just like what some of the other posters have said
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
4 cores for Cinema 4D
1 core for internet and mail
2 cores for photoshop
1 core for quicktime dvd playback
kultschar
Apr 9, 05:00 AM
Not been impressed with control system for certain games on ios however Dead Space on the iPad 2 impresses me graphics wise and a step in the right direction control wise but still a little clunky.
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:13 AM
an obvious ploy IMHO to win the upcoming local elections in Baden-W�rtenberg which are in danger of being lost because of the pro-nuclear stance of the CDU-FDP coalition
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
the question which comes up though is: if 7 nuclear plants can easily taken off the grid for 3 months without consequences to electricity supply... why exactly are they deemed so important ?
Can I answer (raises hand!)?
Given that Germany probably isn't going to magic 7 renewable power stations out of thin air overnight, they'll be stepping up the burning of hydrocarbons.
So the German people will probably be paying more for electricity at a time when oil prices are at a high. It'll poison the environment more, and take Germany further away from realising their Kyoto agreement pledges. And it will probably increase the amount of radioactive material released into the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements), if some of that capacity is switched to coal.
So, a stupid and self serving action by German politicians.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 10:08 AM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 12:37 PM
Let's not forget that these are the same people championing the reduction of C02 emissions under the banner of "stopping climate change," when a) nature is producing three times the C02 than humans are, and b) C02 is itself responsible for about 3-9% of the greenhouse effect (global warming).
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:55 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:13 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:53 PM
Ditto stem cells. :)
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
milo
Sep 12, 05:35 PM
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Does the PC have to be next to the xbox, or is there a way to transfer (hopefully stream) video wirelessly? And if you're using a PC for this, does it tie up the PC or can you use it for other things?
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table.
What makes you think that wouldn't be possible? Elgato does allow pausing live TV, don't they? I don't see why that couldn't be passed on through the iTV.
Except the quality just won't be there yet with this device. As everyone runs out to buy flat screen TVs this year and next, they're going to get home and want to play iTunes movies only to be completely dismayed by the 640x480 content/quality. 4:3 resolution, yuck :confused:
I know it's 802.11 and certainly features an HDMI out, but streaming 720p HD TV takes about 480 Mbps of bandwith, according to Ars:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7681.html Even 802.11n would have trouble with an uncompressed 720p signal, so quality will most likely be compromised as streaming video is increasingly compressed.
There's no reason to use uncompressed HD, all consumer HD formats are compressed and quality can still be very good. Broadcast HDTV only uses about 20Mb, easily handled by .n. And I doubt many people will be "dismayed" by iTunes quality. Right now, isn't HDTV usage way ahead of HD dvd usage? So aren't most people already watching "dvd quality" on their HDTV's?
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
You're using the .g wireless standard, there's a .n standard on the way which is considerably faster. Looks like the new one is what apple will use.
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
spetznatz
Jul 13, 11:24 AM
[The majority of Mac users use Adobe products] Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop.
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
Well, you could try this...
http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D
Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.
Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?
Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
ShnikeJSB
Oct 26, 05:16 PM
My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
SuperCachetes
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented.
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
Good post.
To be fair, though, sometimes Americans give themselves a good shat as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 07:16 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
h'biki
Mar 20, 07:09 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 09:22 PM
Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
TuffLuffJimmy
Mar 14, 12:18 AM
I hope you are aware that Bikini Atol is exactly where Godzilla was born.
I cannot like this comment enough. I'm a life long Godzilla fan!
I cannot like this comment enough. I'm a life long Godzilla fan!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий