JTToft
Apr 21, 11:53 AM
If anybody is interested, here is the iPhone Software License Agreement:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
On the very first page, there is a rather large paragraph describing the use of non-personal location data.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
On the very first page, there is a rather large paragraph describing the use of non-personal location data.
Multimedia
Aug 25, 10:05 AM
I really do wish to see a mini or something similar with more power. At the moment I have a G4 mini (7200rpm disk, 1GB ram and overclocked to 1.58GHz), but I still need a little more power. What is my option at the moment, an Intel mini? I don't think I'd see much of a real difference, so it has to be a Mac Pro? Too much dosh. There has to be something in between for those that have a screen and keyboard, etcNo. Now is not the time to buy it yet. Wait for the Core 2 Duo mini and you will see a radical increase in performance. Current Core Duo too. But as long as the Core 2 Duo models are imminent, no point in not waiting. Why do you think you won't see much real difference? Are you kidding? It's night and day. :rolleyes:
Don Kosak
May 2, 05:20 PM
I wonder if this means MacOS will end up with iOS-style "multi-tasking."
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
iOS style multitasking features (benefits) are indeed in Lion.
Applications written for Lion can "suspend and resume" without having to "save and close" documents. The reason the little light below running apps on the Dock was removed is that "running" is now more of a decision between the App and OS -- not so much the user. (APP - "Am I idle right now? Can I resume from this point very quickly? If so, I'll just suspend myself till the user or an event wakes me back up. No need to burn RAM or CPU, the user won't even notice I'm not here.)
There is no reason with modern computer architecture for humans to do memory management by getting involved with which programs are actually physically in memory/active. We have 7200rpm SATA3 or SSD drives, multicore processors with Gigahertz speeds, and Gigabytes of RAM...
The way we interact with Multitasking in Windows 7 and OS X Snow Leopard is based on the hardware limitations imposed by 640K RAM, 4.7 Megahertz single core processor, and Floppy Disks. Apple took the first brave step away from that with iOS. It's good to see it moving forward in Lion.
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:12 PM
I hope this one is as fun and entertaining as MWSF 06 was, what with Paul otellini coming out in the intel bunny rabbit suit and delivering the chip so to speak :rolleyes:
Full of Win
Mar 23, 01:31 PM
It is a hard drive with a screen! What else can they do? I suppose they could put a 1TB drive in there and add thunderbolt. . . . . That would be interesting!
I hope they don't do much.
The iPod is a portable media tank. Its not for web-browers, its not for apps, its not for contacts, its not for games. What Apple needs to focus on is OUTPUT. Right now its pretty sad, there is a 30 pin connector digital out and a headphone jack out. Moreover, the 30 pin output is limited in that it does not support the newest Apple adapters (VGA or HDMI)
1. Bluetooth Output: Because it is so widespread in cars, speakers and headphones today, this makes so much sense. The battery is likely large enough that it would not cause a significant reduction in battery life.
2. Update Digital Out to support VGA and HDMI output (with internals to match): The iPod should be able to play the same video files as the iPad 2, and upcoming iPod Touch / iPhone 5 and stream them using the HDMI and VGA adapters from Apple.
3. Wi-Fi for Air-Play/Air-Share: Not Wi-Fi for browsing, but Wi-Fi so it can pair to an Apple TV or iPad or whatever and stream videos and music.
I hope they don't do much.
The iPod is a portable media tank. Its not for web-browers, its not for apps, its not for contacts, its not for games. What Apple needs to focus on is OUTPUT. Right now its pretty sad, there is a 30 pin connector digital out and a headphone jack out. Moreover, the 30 pin output is limited in that it does not support the newest Apple adapters (VGA or HDMI)
1. Bluetooth Output: Because it is so widespread in cars, speakers and headphones today, this makes so much sense. The battery is likely large enough that it would not cause a significant reduction in battery life.
2. Update Digital Out to support VGA and HDMI output (with internals to match): The iPod should be able to play the same video files as the iPad 2, and upcoming iPod Touch / iPhone 5 and stream them using the HDMI and VGA adapters from Apple.
3. Wi-Fi for Air-Play/Air-Share: Not Wi-Fi for browsing, but Wi-Fi so it can pair to an Apple TV or iPad or whatever and stream videos and music.
iJaz
Oct 23, 06:56 AM
I can bet $100 that there will be MacBook/Pro upgrades either this year or next year!
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:04 PM
Most of the posts in this thread are about the 23" screen. Yes, I think it will happen to allow the imac to play 1080i/1080p HD.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)Absolutely Quad Girl. You are right on the money. Plus DUAL DVI support so you can span to a 30" display.
But, how about the processors? Apple needs to have a Core 2 (Conroe not Merom) inside the imac. The imac is not a conventionally size desktop (not as much room inside as a tower) but Apple can not continue to use a laptop processor in the imac. If they do, then how will the Conroe be used in Apple's line up? In a Mac tower? I don't think so. Surely, a 23" iMac could house the Conroe suitably?
So I would say that the 23" iMac would kill 2 birds - Conroe and HD for the home user. :)Absolutely Quad Girl. You are right on the money. Plus DUAL DVI support so you can span to a 30" display.
ZoomZoomZoom
Jul 18, 04:25 AM
I actually prefer renting to buying, if the price is right. Don't have to worry about driving back and forth, and don't have to worry about late fees. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't download music from iTunes though, and I like to have everything I own also in a physical format. (I buy CDs.) Thus, I like this system because I can look at a movie just once or twice (It's not like I watch most movies more than once anyways) and if it's really good, I'll go to a store and buy it.
Of course, this all depends on the price of the rental. If it's anything over $3 maybe $4 pending on quality, I'd rather just bring myself to a movie theatre. Or borrow a DVD from a friend.
Of course, this all depends on the price of the rental. If it's anything over $3 maybe $4 pending on quality, I'd rather just bring myself to a movie theatre. Or borrow a DVD from a friend.
Benjy91
Mar 28, 02:17 AM
Again people saying you couldn't play with a touchscreen device without looking at it have no imagination or understanding. Definately within two years you will be shown to be horribly wrong on this point.
You're sure about that? Considering the next Xbox isn't due for release till about 2015, and the PS4 probably later, and I'm pretty sure those systems will ship with controllers. The Kinect being an optional extra.
And I seriously doubt the iPad will could be seen as a serious competitor to Games Consoles and PC gaming, in the same way my calculator is a competitor to my iPhone because it performs a same function, better than my iPhone does.
You're sure about that? Considering the next Xbox isn't due for release till about 2015, and the PS4 probably later, and I'm pretty sure those systems will ship with controllers. The Kinect being an optional extra.
And I seriously doubt the iPad will could be seen as a serious competitor to Games Consoles and PC gaming, in the same way my calculator is a competitor to my iPhone because it performs a same function, better than my iPhone does.
Trauma1
Apr 21, 11:24 AM
The people who are truly concerned about their privacy, for whatever reason that may be, know that this issue pales in comparison to everything else.
a456
Sep 1, 02:09 PM
Definitely not. There's too much branding in the iMac name. For consumers, it means ease and simplicity with power and looks. Additionally, just calling it Mac would be confusing for everyone, especially when they ask what kind of mac you own?
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
"I own a Mac."
"Yeah? What kind?"
"A Mac."
"I know. You just said that. But what kind of mac?"
"A Mac. You know. A Mac."
"I'm going to kill you now, sir."
Heh that's a great name for the next iMac, an aMac. No longer the 'information' Mac but the 'all' Mac, the Mac that does everything to go with the new aPod.
iJohnHenry
Apr 17, 08:04 AM
I'm 32, still love driving
Very humorous. :)
Very humorous. :)
generik
Jul 19, 05:24 PM
- 2nd highest quarterly sales and earnings in Apple's history
Made possible by paying 10c for each Mac constructed with a high quality and proficient workforce.
Made possible by paying 10c for each Mac constructed with a high quality and proficient workforce.
RayLancer
Oct 2, 10:36 AM
Actually I kind of like my gel case. It perfectly fits and makes the back look great. I intended to wait for the belkin's clear hard case to come out, but now I'm going to order the full set of this gel case and it's still cheaper.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
Where did you get yours from? I ordered one off ebay and it was horribly warped, both of them. It was pretty loose and stretched so it wouldn't fit my iPod at all.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0357.jpg
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/longasau/IMG_0358.jpg
Where did you get yours from? I ordered one off ebay and it was horribly warped, both of them. It was pretty loose and stretched so it wouldn't fit my iPod at all.
generik
Oct 14, 07:03 PM
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
milo
Sep 6, 07:38 AM
yeah hopefully by at least the 26th or the 12th. but by speculating that it's going to happen the following week hasn't worked for anyone yet
Anyone speculating it would happen before about now was on crack. Go to a site like Apple Insider, they don't make the "every week" predictions like Thinksecret does. A shipment of minis came in the fifth, my guess would be that they won't announce them at the event (but maybe I'm wrong), but will just do a press release a few days after.
Anyone speculating it would happen before about now was on crack. Go to a site like Apple Insider, they don't make the "every week" predictions like Thinksecret does. A shipment of minis came in the fifth, my guess would be that they won't announce them at the event (but maybe I'm wrong), but will just do a press release a few days after.
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:29 PM
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 04:48 PM
It's totally 'legal', so if you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't stop others from doing so.
SuperJudge
Feb 21, 08:21 PM
Organizing my old pics and ran across some previous setups.
Home
Circa July 2006:
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/000074dr.jpg
Circa June 2008:
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/desk.jpg
Work
Not sure of the exact dates, but in order. Early 2009 to Late 2010
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/pano.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/pano-1.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/newdesk.jpg
Before anyone says anything, I know that there are IP addresses visible in that last pic. I left the pic unredacted because those addresses currently point to nothing currently. :-p
Current pics of home and work are forthcoming.
Home
Circa July 2006:
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/000074dr.jpg
Circa June 2008:
http://s159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/desk.jpg
Work
Not sure of the exact dates, but in order. Early 2009 to Late 2010
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/pano.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/pano-1.jpg
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t150/analogheretic/Desks%20and%20Setups/newdesk.jpg
Before anyone says anything, I know that there are IP addresses visible in that last pic. I left the pic unredacted because those addresses currently point to nothing currently. :-p
Current pics of home and work are forthcoming.
wordoflife
Feb 27, 08:34 PM
Changed it up a bit.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
Looks like you do a fair bit of typing on that thing!
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
Looks like you do a fair bit of typing on that thing!
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
jbomber
Jan 13, 06:03 PM
am i the only one who doesn't think the name is as awful as people think? :D
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
in any event, i doubt that's the name. granted, apple doesn't register urls for individual products, i'd find it hard to believe that they'd leave this one in the wind for just anyone to snatch up.
in all likelihood it relates to some aspect of the features, or the overall weight of the device.
i really wish it was the fabled MacTablet being released, but it sounds like it's still a ways off...
admanimal
Sep 1, 02:28 PM
It all seems pretty obvious.
...which is exactly why it will not happen.
...which is exactly why it will not happen.
zeemeerman2
Apr 19, 11:13 AM
What are these "Macs" you speak of?
Long, long ago, when the animals could still talk and houses didn't have Windows, a round piece of fruit made a Mac, a revolutionary way to use computers ( /com-puu-ters/ ). They improved the system time and time again to the extend that we have nowadays.
Then came the evil Bill, known from the creation of fences and Gates, and he made something that looked like nothing but was in fact something. Namely, glass Windows. You could look through it, yet not go through it. It was symbolic to say "You can see your home, but there's no possible way to go there. Muahahaha!"
Unknown by many people, Macs at the other hand, you just could eat (since Mackintosh is a sort of Apples) through and go through. It would finish your hunger and you would be never hungry again.
And because of the amount of water in the Mac, you wouldn't be thirsty again either. Romans knew that already; they named it Aqua.
Nowadays, times are different. The Aqua is bit by bit drying up, and Apple thinks more about phones. But even if the Aqua will be gone soon, the Mac is still an Apple, and it will finish your thirst.
Apple knows that, and they think chocolate has a better taste. Therefore, they have Cocoa now. Much better than Aqua. And it fills directly to your stomach, underneath all things you see, so you don't even have to see that you're drinking. You can do other things while your stomach is filled with Cocoa.
...
Well, anyone else can made a story from puns of Apple stuff? (Anything about getting a job (Steve Jobs)? ... Just saying...)
Long, long ago, when the animals could still talk and houses didn't have Windows, a round piece of fruit made a Mac, a revolutionary way to use computers ( /com-puu-ters/ ). They improved the system time and time again to the extend that we have nowadays.
Then came the evil Bill, known from the creation of fences and Gates, and he made something that looked like nothing but was in fact something. Namely, glass Windows. You could look through it, yet not go through it. It was symbolic to say "You can see your home, but there's no possible way to go there. Muahahaha!"
Unknown by many people, Macs at the other hand, you just could eat (since Mackintosh is a sort of Apples) through and go through. It would finish your hunger and you would be never hungry again.
And because of the amount of water in the Mac, you wouldn't be thirsty again either. Romans knew that already; they named it Aqua.
Nowadays, times are different. The Aqua is bit by bit drying up, and Apple thinks more about phones. But even if the Aqua will be gone soon, the Mac is still an Apple, and it will finish your thirst.
Apple knows that, and they think chocolate has a better taste. Therefore, they have Cocoa now. Much better than Aqua. And it fills directly to your stomach, underneath all things you see, so you don't even have to see that you're drinking. You can do other things while your stomach is filled with Cocoa.
...
Well, anyone else can made a story from puns of Apple stuff? (Anything about getting a job (Steve Jobs)? ... Just saying...)
bigpics
Mar 23, 11:37 PM
One more vote to keep the old gal around.
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق