xterm
Jul 14, 09:21 AM
As purely a data storage format, obviously Blu-ray has the potential to store more data than HD DVD.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
However, as someone who has been following the whole BD vs. HD DVD consumer video format war, and as someone who has bought an HD DVD player (and, until recently, had a BD video player on order), at this (albeit early) stage of the game, HD DVD is the superior video format.
HD DVD has 30gb dual layer discs available (almost all the latest video releases on HD DVD are 30gb dual layer.) There are many more titles available for HD DVD right now (probably because it's been out longer and the discs themselves are easier to manufacture.) HD DVD uses a more efficient codec (Microsoft's VC-1, which is akin to H.264, in that it's much much more efficient than MPEG-2.) HD DVD titles have either Dolby Digital Plus (a higher bit-rate multichannel audio codec) and Dolby TruHD (a lossless multichannel audio codec).
BD only has 25gb single layer discs available now. Apparently the 50gb dual layer discs are hard to manufacture and the yields are not ready for prime time. No BD retail video discs are above 25gb single layer. No timetable for 50gb discs has been announced. The video is MPEG-2, meaning it takes up more space on the disc. And, the most recent BD releases all suffer from more MPEG artifacts than any HD DVD releases. BD audio is either standard Dolby Digital or space consuming uncompressed PCM audio (which sucks up even more disc space, leaving even less for video.)
The current Samsung BD player actually has the same (Broadcom) chip that the current Toshiba HD DVD player has in terms of outputing video... and it only outputs 1080i. The Samsung player tacks on another (Faroudja) chip to deinterlace it, so it outputs 1080p (so BD can say "we output 1080p!"), except, that chip apparently stinks and makes the picture somewhat soft. In reality, any HDTV worth its salt can easily deinterlace 1080i signals, so the whole "we output 1080p" is a false advantage anyway. Both BD and HD DVD discs store the video as 1080p, by the way.
So, what you have, on the video front, BD has a smaller capacity disk with less efficient video and audio codecs (that look and sound worse). And it is TWICE the price ($500 vs. $1000). And has less titles. And is late.
If you read any reports on BD video quality vs. HD DVD video quality on boards like AVSforum.com, HD DVD beats BD hands down.
Who knows how this video format war will shake out, but Blu-ray is way behind right now.
-Terry
Good post, sums up the current situation very nicely.
Given that dual layer 50GB blu-ray discs cant even be produced yet, i think the 200GB claim is complete vaporware.
I hope HD-DVD wins this war soon, as it is out of the gates first, and thus far a far superior format. If Blu-Ray were to give up now, i dont think many people would be sad. One format is better for everyone.
pmjoe
Apr 26, 03:58 PM
Trademarking office. How pompous. What's next, trademarking word and windows? :rolleyes:
[...]
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
What Microsoft sells is an Operating System, not a GUI element. Apple is welcome to rename their OS to "Buttons" or "Menus" and trademark that for their OS name if they choose.
[...]
No difference at all, really. The concept of windows in GUI computing was introduced long before Microsoft decided to clone Mac OS. Windows in computing is just as generic a term as windows in your home.
What Microsoft sells is an Operating System, not a GUI element. Apple is welcome to rename their OS to "Buttons" or "Menus" and trademark that for their OS name if they choose.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 12:56 PM
I wish there were more affordable Diesels in the States. A Cruze might be a bit "too" affordable, but neither can I step up to a Mercedes. The BMW 330d is sweet, though. I have to rule out VWs based on a personal bias. What to do... :o
The VW diesels are very well-built cars. A friend bought an '09 Jetta TDI and he is satisfied with it. I checked out the BMW 335d at the Detroit Auto show a year ago or so, and while I like the car BMW only offers it as a sedan and the base price is a laughably expensive $44k. If you won't buy a VW and want a newish diesel, your only other vaguely affordable option is a used W210/W211 (1996-2009) Mercedes Benz E-Class diesel. Nice cars, but you'll have to find one and it will be used (and not particularly cheap).
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
Chrysler is particularly stupid in my opinion, because they should have put the Mercedes diesel engines from the Sprinter van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Sprinter#North_America), which they were already selling here, into the Ram. The Sprinter came with four, five and six cylinder diesels that would fit into a variety of other vehicles, and would be particularly useful in trucks and SUVs. While weaker than the biggest V8s, they still offer a lot of torque for their size and much better fuel economy. Why, Chrysler? Why?
Mercedes sells the Sprinter here now, so the opportunity was lost for Chrysler.
The VW diesels are very well-built cars. A friend bought an '09 Jetta TDI and he is satisfied with it. I checked out the BMW 335d at the Detroit Auto show a year ago or so, and while I like the car BMW only offers it as a sedan and the base price is a laughably expensive $44k. If you won't buy a VW and want a newish diesel, your only other vaguely affordable option is a used W210/W211 (1996-2009) Mercedes Benz E-Class diesel. Nice cars, but you'll have to find one and it will be used (and not particularly cheap).
I currently have a 4.7L V8 Dodge Dakota. I'd buy a diesel version of it in a heartbeat. I could still get the power/hauling ability needed but have the mileage to justify having the pickup.
But now with the possibility of having $5/gal gas looming, the 18 HWY MPG may force my hand.
Had the truck for over 5 years, but it may get too cost prohibitive to keep.
that the US car makers still sells trucks, pickups etc. without diesel options is simply a complete lack of any common sense. diesel engines are practically made to be perfect for pulling and towing in commercial vehicles
Chrysler is particularly stupid in my opinion, because they should have put the Mercedes diesel engines from the Sprinter van (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Sprinter#North_America), which they were already selling here, into the Ram. The Sprinter came with four, five and six cylinder diesels that would fit into a variety of other vehicles, and would be particularly useful in trucks and SUVs. While weaker than the biggest V8s, they still offer a lot of torque for their size and much better fuel economy. Why, Chrysler? Why?
Mercedes sells the Sprinter here now, so the opportunity was lost for Chrysler.
miketcool
Jan 1, 06:31 PM
Thank you Human Resources for moving my next payday to Jan. 9th.
>signed<
Soon To Be Broke-Again
>signed<
Soon To Be Broke-Again
DamnItsHot
Apr 21, 05:06 PM
I think it is interesting that he says the data is easily accessible by "criminals and bad actors". As a politician he has a high probability of fitting in the criminal category and so far as his so called acting goes he definitely fits that category. Could he have been looking in the mirror when he spewed this garbage?
Couldn't make it as an actor so he went into a lower tier - politics. ;)
Couldn't make it as an actor so he went into a lower tier - politics. ;)
apb3
Aug 16, 11:47 AM
Not hard for Apple to stop this with something like a digital signature allowing your pod to only sync with your library
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
Oh great! more DRM....I don't think that's the way to go from a PR standpoint as far as Apple is concerned and in terms of what makes iTunes and the iPod sell so well ... and not as easy as you make it seem. Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Shared music libs already address this. And again, the cost/benefit analysis of what we need to expend to do this power-wise, price-wise, PR-wise, etc... (in my opinion) just don't cut it.
zap2
Apr 8, 07:42 PM
So why not Mexico? Mexico is experiencing way more violence than most of these Middle East countries yet their request for U.N. aid in 2009 was denied. They are on our doorstep and we are ignoring it for the most part even though we are partly to blame for the violence. The U.N. actually told Mexico just the other day to withdraw their own Military forces from the fight against the cartels.
Well we are working with Mexico in a diplomatic sense....but you know, it's not a war zone, so bombing them isn't going to be effective.
And putting troops on the ground in Mexico was never requested and would likely result in more fighting. The solution to Mexico's troubles are social, not through weapons.
Well we are working with Mexico in a diplomatic sense....but you know, it's not a war zone, so bombing them isn't going to be effective.
And putting troops on the ground in Mexico was never requested and would likely result in more fighting. The solution to Mexico's troubles are social, not through weapons.
OdduWon
Oct 23, 10:22 AM
So Macbooks next tuesday :confused:
yes on the 31 we shall have a trick and a treat... ...MACBOO
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
yes on the 31 we shall have a trick and a treat... ...MACBOO
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/jonathaniliff/macboo2-1.jpg
![how to draw sin cara mask. [image]](http://www.ring-rap.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sin-cara7.jpg "[image]")
lordonuthin
Apr 14, 12:50 AM
What computers do you have operating to get those points? You must be an IT admin or something surely they are not your computers?
Actually they ARE all mine along with the electric bill and heat :p I have 4 amd athlon x2 4400+ machines which don't produce vary many points, a phenom x4 9600, a phenom II x4 965 black with 3 gpu's, core i7 920 with 3 gpu's and a 2009 Mac Pro 2x2.66 cpu's running bigadv units. The gpu's are 2 x GT 260 and 4 x GTX 275. I know that is a bit of money and the power bill is quite high, but hey it's a thing to spend money on I suppose. I could spend it on my house and yard which could use it but...
At work we have a pile of new Nehalem Dell's and IBM power 7's that I would love to fold on but I can't do that because it would interfere with the work they have to do which is bio science related as well. And well, I would lose my job... they aren't very keen on personal use of company hardware.
Actually they ARE all mine along with the electric bill and heat :p I have 4 amd athlon x2 4400+ machines which don't produce vary many points, a phenom x4 9600, a phenom II x4 965 black with 3 gpu's, core i7 920 with 3 gpu's and a 2009 Mac Pro 2x2.66 cpu's running bigadv units. The gpu's are 2 x GT 260 and 4 x GTX 275. I know that is a bit of money and the power bill is quite high, but hey it's a thing to spend money on I suppose. I could spend it on my house and yard which could use it but...
At work we have a pile of new Nehalem Dell's and IBM power 7's that I would love to fold on but I can't do that because it would interfere with the work they have to do which is bio science related as well. And well, I would lose my job... they aren't very keen on personal use of company hardware.
Multimedia
Sep 1, 12:54 PM
23" Imac is a great size. Add HD resolution then that's great.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.You must have been asleep for the past 8 months. Since the January Intel iMacs, they already have spaning support up to the 23" 1920x1200 external displays. The advance we need is DUAL-DVI so they can span to $2k 30" displays Apple would love to sell more of.
I would love to see dual display support. But I highly doubt they will allow it. Apple wants to make sure there is a distinction between their consumer and pro line. It would be cool to have the Imac 23" with a 23" Cinema display next to it.You must have been asleep for the past 8 months. Since the January Intel iMacs, they already have spaning support up to the 23" 1920x1200 external displays. The advance we need is DUAL-DVI so they can span to $2k 30" displays Apple would love to sell more of.
Changen
Feb 23, 03:17 PM
nothing special but heres my setups bedroom and office
FFTT
Nov 25, 04:06 PM
Those slow old Core Duo minis put my $2700 Beige G3 tower to shame.
FoxyKaye
Jun 23, 12:00 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
lkjoseph
Apr 2, 10:53 PM
I think what you don't realize is that for people who love the iPad either:
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
a) They don't need something more powerful, or
b) They have other devices (laptops, pcs) that do what other things they want to do.
I fit in camp B. I use my iPad for web surfing, reading, sharing pictures, while listening to Pandora. Could I use my laptop for this? Sure I could - Yes. But I enjoy using my iPad for these types of tasks. It's more comfortable using for these tasks, and more enjoyable.
Think about this for a second. Why do you have a toaster? Can't you toast bread in your oven by putting it on broil? A toaster has so few features compared to an oven. What's the use of a toaster? This points out the reasons for an iPad. My 'toaster' isn't my only cooking device in my house, but it complements my stove, just like my iPad complements my laptop.
I signed up to post to MacRumors just now so I could post and let you know your analogy is perfect. Excellent post.
Roy Hobbs
Jan 2, 01:36 PM
The shown device was the "breakout box".
iTV is YA Apple "ecosystem" comprising of software like OSX, Front Row, and super DVR. It has a ($299) breakout box to hook to existing computers and TV's. It has a new iMac, which if you buy it, replaces 2-3 separate elements. It will have a supersize display screen with iTV enabled features.
Of course this is all speculation, but it is based on a wide ranging discussion of media experts since the pre-release of iTV.
Rocketman
If I had to bet on it I am willing to bet that what was already shown is all we are going to get. A "break-out" box that streams media from a mac to the TV
iTV is YA Apple "ecosystem" comprising of software like OSX, Front Row, and super DVR. It has a ($299) breakout box to hook to existing computers and TV's. It has a new iMac, which if you buy it, replaces 2-3 separate elements. It will have a supersize display screen with iTV enabled features.
Of course this is all speculation, but it is based on a wide ranging discussion of media experts since the pre-release of iTV.
Rocketman
If I had to bet on it I am willing to bet that what was already shown is all we are going to get. A "break-out" box that streams media from a mac to the TV
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:32 PM
Honestly, this is just as good of news for Hackintosh folks, as it is for MP owners. Dumb question folks, but can MacPro's upgraded with COTS ATX PWS? Ive never seen one...but im 99.999999999999& sure the answer is no.
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
hansolo669
Mar 1, 10:23 AM
haha - luckilly my family dont control my eBay account, and if they complain I find a way of hiding a few more of them in a cupboard (I actually ended up moving a shelf at one point so I could fit a iMac G3 in it) - although it is reaching the point where both my room and my dorm room are nearly full of old (and new) Macs... xD (All of them bar 1 boot, and the 1 that doesnt is only because its HD is on the way out - with a goodun it boots just fine).
haha- nice ;) , im just waiting till i move out (oh and have that magical thing called money). the thrill of makeing old machines work "just one more" :)
haha- nice ;) , im just waiting till i move out (oh and have that magical thing called money). the thrill of makeing old machines work "just one more" :)
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 09:06 AM
9AM Eastern is the most obvious time to do it, I guess. (But, to be pedantic, did you mean 2pm GMT or BST? ;) :) )
I time i meant was London time which is the same as GMT but i dont know th difference between GMT and British Standard time. Come on new imacs....
Apple you morans, no updates to the store, my life is over.
I time i meant was London time which is the same as GMT but i dont know th difference between GMT and British Standard time. Come on new imacs....
Apple you morans, no updates to the store, my life is over.
aLoC
Nov 17, 10:30 AM
I currently have a 24" iMac and am very happy with it.
Will consider a Mac Pro if it gets 8 cores and they drop the FB-DIMMs. Don't want FB-DIMMs, they have the definite feel of an overcomplicated solution to a problem.
Will consider a Mac Pro if it gets 8 cores and they drop the FB-DIMMs. Don't want FB-DIMMs, they have the definite feel of an overcomplicated solution to a problem.
dmw007
Nov 15, 08:24 AM
Next Tuesday...
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
Oh good! :D
***gets credit card ready***
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
I enjoyed that benchmark result as well. :D :)
~Shard~
Sep 6, 09:01 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac.
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac.
You are alone on this one - the end of the G5 iMac has already happened, in fact it happened a long time ago when Apple introduced the first Intel iMacs. Hate to break it to ya, but G5 iMacs haven't been around for a long time, nor does a 24" G5 iMac even exist. :p :cool:
As for this new incarnation of the Intel iMac though, it totally depends on Apple's strategy. If they want to leave it as a desktop computer, yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to get much bigger. However, if they want to eventually incorporate a TV tuner and make it even more media-centric, and have it evolve into something else, then this may just be the beginning, not the end. :cool:
Ravich
Mar 20, 04:31 PM
Enough with the false comparisons. Homeopathy doesnt actively harm people that buy into it. "ex-gay" therapy is harmful.
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
crazycat
Sep 1, 03:51 PM
Well if its true all i can say is to late, why could'nt they have brought it out when the intel iMacs came out :(
No comments:
Post a Comment