MovieCutter
Feb 26, 12:06 PM
Still under construction:
1x40 Samsung LED TV
1x24" LED ACD
1x27" LED ACD
1x30" ACD
3.2Ghz OctoCore Mac Pro
Quad i7 2.3Ghz MBP 17" Antiglare
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
1x40 Samsung LED TV
1x24" LED ACD
1x27" LED ACD
1x30" ACD
3.2Ghz OctoCore Mac Pro
Quad i7 2.3Ghz MBP 17" Antiglare
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
guzhogi
Jul 14, 11:01 AM
I went to my local MicroCenter a few days ago & saw BluRay movies (XXX, Underworld: Evolution, Hitch, and 1 or 2 more) so there ARE movies out for it. Each was worth $29.99 USD so they're gonna be expensive.
I'm just going to wait a while until either BluRay or HD-DVD win out. I'm sure this is going to be like the VHS vs. Betamax thing. I remember hearing that while BluRay can hold more data, movie studios would have to buy totally new equipment to burn them. HD-DVD, however, while having a lower capacity, the studios would only have to make minor adjustments. But don't quote me on that.
If I had the money (which I don't), I'd really like to get the top of the line Mac Pro w/ all the bells & whistles when Apple ships Leopard and build my own windows computer when (if?) Windows Xista ships. I saw a full tower case w/ 5 external 5.25" bays, 2 3.5" external & 5 internal bays. I'd like to get a DVD-burner, a BluRay burner, an HD-DVD burner and a CD-RW. Probably an Nvidia mobo, 2 ATI high-end workstation graphics card (if they work w/ nvidia's sli), a Soundblaster X-Fi w/ the 3.5" bay thing, a memory card reader for the other external 3.5" bay. Then a Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM 150GB drive and 4 Seagate 750 GB drives and as many of Apple's 30" displays it can handle (or whatever the biggest, fastest stuff is out then). :D
I'm just going to wait a while until either BluRay or HD-DVD win out. I'm sure this is going to be like the VHS vs. Betamax thing. I remember hearing that while BluRay can hold more data, movie studios would have to buy totally new equipment to burn them. HD-DVD, however, while having a lower capacity, the studios would only have to make minor adjustments. But don't quote me on that.
If I had the money (which I don't), I'd really like to get the top of the line Mac Pro w/ all the bells & whistles when Apple ships Leopard and build my own windows computer when (if?) Windows Xista ships. I saw a full tower case w/ 5 external 5.25" bays, 2 3.5" external & 5 internal bays. I'd like to get a DVD-burner, a BluRay burner, an HD-DVD burner and a CD-RW. Probably an Nvidia mobo, 2 ATI high-end workstation graphics card (if they work w/ nvidia's sli), a Soundblaster X-Fi w/ the 3.5" bay thing, a memory card reader for the other external 3.5" bay. Then a Western Digital Raptor 10,000 RPM 150GB drive and 4 Seagate 750 GB drives and as many of Apple's 30" displays it can handle (or whatever the biggest, fastest stuff is out then). :D
Time Less
Mar 25, 03:41 PM
Can the new GPU even do 1080p?
i would think so since apple says the ipad 2 will output 1080p to a tv. only 720p for iphone 4.
i would think so since apple says the ipad 2 will output 1080p to a tv. only 720p for iphone 4.
Lord Blackadder
Feb 22, 07:28 PM
Why do Americans harbor hate for diesel? I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
In brief:
and friendship. quotes on
friendship quotes
fRIENDSHIP qUOTES.
friendship quotes collage.
friendship and love quotes
Quotes About Friendship
friendship quotes and
good quotes about friendship.
valentine friendship quotes.
friends quotes pictures.
friendship quotes for girls.
altquot;friendship quotes
Friendship Quotes And Sayings
Cute Friendship Quotes middot;
funny friends quotes
In brief:
kungming2
Jan 12, 01:15 PM
Why do some posters have problems with a consumer notebook having an Alu finish? Is the iMac not a consumer product?
People will always have problems with whatever Apple does.
People will always have problems with whatever Apple does.
cyclotron451
Nov 16, 07:37 AM
Notwithstandign such long-standing facts, there are still some MS fanboys here who think Windows is better for multicore usage (not to mention multitasking, which has been ALWAYS better in OS X)... :rolleyes:
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Zune is dead, Windows is dead...face it.
Well, with the Intel Core roadmap for 2016 possibly getting up to close to 300 heterogeneous cores per motherboard/PC, certainly Windows is out of the race but OS XX 20.x will have to have evolved to probably DAML/OWL Semantic Web Ontology based, with System Strategy and System Policy Reasoners, i.e. a Cognitive OS with a flexible Operating Envelope. I think that would definitely make Safari snappier!
Josias
Aug 7, 03:48 AM
Are there going to be static downloads of the event? I mean, one I can save to view later? I hate streams, so badly.
I dunno about that. I had hoped you could download it in HD from Apple' website:D , and though it would take 44 days and nights, I'd be willing to do it... But I think we're gonna have to do with something a bit less. To be honest, I don't care about the Keynote. I just want to read about it on MR, and see a more detailed and graphically advanced description of the products on Apple.com a few hours later...:rolleyes:
I dunno about that. I had hoped you could download it in HD from Apple' website:D , and though it would take 44 days and nights, I'd be willing to do it... But I think we're gonna have to do with something a bit less. To be honest, I don't care about the Keynote. I just want to read about it on MR, and see a more detailed and graphically advanced description of the products on Apple.com a few hours later...:rolleyes:
Evangelion
Aug 29, 01:23 PM
The pricelist from Intel themselves (PDF). (http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf)
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc.
They cost the same! Intel hasn't announced any price drops yet.
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
Core 2 Duo: Merom pricing.
Yonah prices in normal font, Merom in bold
1.66 GHz - $209/ $209
1.83 GHz - $241/ $241
2 GHz - $294/$294 etc. etc.
They cost the same! Intel hasn't announced any price drops yet.
you can be certain that the price-difference is there. since merom and yonah are 1:1 compatible, why would anyone use yonah istead of merom? but since the two will be sold side-by-side, yonah obviously has some benefits that merom does not have. and that benefit is most likely price.
gnasher729
Apr 26, 04:03 PM
trademarking app store. How pompous. What's next, trademarking computer store, book store, pet store? LOL.
Well, last saturday I went to a shopping centre, and they had two computer stores, at least three book stores, a pet store, and exactly zero app stores. Have you ever, ever in your life gone to an app store? You know anyone who works as a sales assistant in an app store? Any app stores offering jobs?
Well, last saturday I went to a shopping centre, and they had two computer stores, at least three book stores, a pet store, and exactly zero app stores. Have you ever, ever in your life gone to an app store? You know anyone who works as a sales assistant in an app store? Any app stores offering jobs?
MacFan782040
Jul 19, 11:45 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/IPod_sales_quarterly.png
toddybody
Mar 24, 02:24 PM
Lian Li Hackintosh yo.
mrapplegate
Apr 6, 08:14 AM
Ok I'm using a Late 2008 MBP model, 2.4 ghz IC2D , 4gig ram. But Launchpad is lagging for me big time, when I try to scroll thru my apps for instance. and when i switch windows its not always flowing. Now I know LION still has a few miles to go before it works perfectly, however I wanna know if its the same for other developers with later MBP's or does it flow perfectly?
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
czardmitri
Nov 28, 02:16 PM
one of the key differences between the xbox and zune. is that microsoft only had to contend with 2 other players in the video game indistry. the ipod maybe top. but there are hundred of other companies to battle first just to reach second place. and also phone companies. spending money maynot help them like in the case of the xbox.
The main difference (as I understand it) is that MS can at least attempt to make up for their losses on the sales of xBoxes from the games that are licensed for xBox. They can't do the same with music for the money they're losing on each Zune sold. Apple's margin on music is slim; they make money on the iPods.
The main difference (as I understand it) is that MS can at least attempt to make up for their losses on the sales of xBoxes from the games that are licensed for xBox. They can't do the same with music for the money they're losing on each Zune sold. Apple's margin on music is slim; they make money on the iPods.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
pesc
Nov 27, 04:49 PM
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Do the math! A wide screen 17" display has fewer pixels than a 4:3 17" display (given the same dpi).
So I sincerely hope they aren't going to charge more for a wide display that has less pixels than a 4:3 display.
Do the math! A wide screen 17" display has fewer pixels than a 4:3 17" display (given the same dpi).
So I sincerely hope they aren't going to charge more for a wide display that has less pixels than a 4:3 display.
�algiris
May 3, 02:32 AM
So, you're saying that windows programs don't leave files on your computer when uninstalled? Installing and uninstalling a bunch of programs don't make your windows PC slow down? I must be using the wrong programs. Not that I'm saying that Mac's are perfect, but worse than windows? I hope not (I'm not a mac user... Yet)
If you just move app to the Trash on a Mac it will leave just few folders and plists (settings files) usually and since Mac OS X doesn't have something that works as Registry on Windows it won't slow down anything.
Apple could have adressed this problem by simply popping up a window when you drad a programm icon to the trash asking you if you want to delete just this programm or uninstall all of its data.
This is not a final Lion version. It would make sense at least for MAS apps.
Poor lion has to accommodate all these iOS features. I'll stay with snow leopard.
Does this feature hurt you in any way, does it cripple OS? Do you not like out of the box option to delete app with it's settings at least for MAS apps? That's just pathetic.
If you just move app to the Trash on a Mac it will leave just few folders and plists (settings files) usually and since Mac OS X doesn't have something that works as Registry on Windows it won't slow down anything.
Apple could have adressed this problem by simply popping up a window when you drad a programm icon to the trash asking you if you want to delete just this programm or uninstall all of its data.
This is not a final Lion version. It would make sense at least for MAS apps.
Poor lion has to accommodate all these iOS features. I'll stay with snow leopard.
Does this feature hurt you in any way, does it cripple OS? Do you not like out of the box option to delete app with it's settings at least for MAS apps? That's just pathetic.
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
zedsdead
Apr 12, 09:09 PM
Final Cut X - 64 Bit, full re-write! YES!
Morod
Apr 21, 11:34 AM
It doesn't take long for crap politics to enter a thread....
roland.g
Apr 19, 11:05 AM
I've been waiting for a refresh to replace my rev. A Aluminum 24" iMac 2.8Ghz (Aug 2007) with a new 27". Going to sell my Aluminum 13.3" MacBook and iMac and get a new one.
But I will probably wait the extra few months for Lion. No point in upgrading just prior to what I expect to be a relatively major OS release. I doubt 10.7 will be the $29 upgrade Snow Leopard was.
But I will probably wait the extra few months for Lion. No point in upgrading just prior to what I expect to be a relatively major OS release. I doubt 10.7 will be the $29 upgrade Snow Leopard was.
kdarling
Apr 22, 09:33 PM
Why is it necessary to keep your location a secret? What are Google and Apple going to do to you? What *exactly* and *specifically* is there to be afraid of?
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
There are many people whose movements are best kept secret from certain others, with risk of life if revealed.
Battered women or kids in a secret shelter home, witness protection participants, undercover agents of all sorts, dissidents and rebels.
On a less serious note, there are probably some bosses who gave out iPhones, checking company iTunes hosts this weekned to see if their employees' travel receipts and sick days match their movements.
Your location is *never* a secret, unless you're the President and it's a national crisis.
There are many people whose movements are best kept secret from certain others, with risk of life if revealed.
Battered women or kids in a secret shelter home, witness protection participants, undercover agents of all sorts, dissidents and rebels.
On a less serious note, there are probably some bosses who gave out iPhones, checking company iTunes hosts this weekned to see if their employees' travel receipts and sick days match their movements.
iJawn108
Jan 1, 05:24 PM
I think we'll see QT 8 previewed.:D
Rodimus Prime
Feb 26, 11:14 PM
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.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
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.
I take it you need to haul, tow stuff often enough that not having the truck would be painful.
My dad refuses to get rid of there 1995 Ram that gets like 15 MPG HWY on a good day because it is nice to have a truck for when stuff needs to be hauled or we need the bed.
Mind you the truck has been pretty much reduced to just that type of duty or if one of our other cars are out of action for one reason or another it is a spare vehicle.
SUV and trucks have their places. Problem I see is to many people only want trucks when really in a family with 2 vehicles you really only need a max of 1 SUV/truck between them and a car for the rest. That is how my parents did it for a while. SUV for my mom/family car and a gas and my dad drove a car.
Dad car mainly went 2 and from work and my mom SUV was for when the family went somewhere together and my mom drove it to and from work but my mom drove like 6 miles each way compared to my dads near 30 miles each way.
Anticlockwork
Jan 6, 12:44 AM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04078.jpg
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
Woot I'm not the only one!
Here is mine. 72 Super beetle.
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7638/img0174ix.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/img0174ix.jpg/)
No show winner, but its mine :P :D
Woot I'm not the only one!
Here is mine. 72 Super beetle.
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/7638/img0174ix.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/img0174ix.jpg/)
No comments:
Post a Comment