KnightWRX
Apr 27, 09:19 AM
"App Store" is a trademarked name of a particular store. "appstore," or "app store" in generic terms and context is a description of a particular thing. How hard is it for these companies to understand that that's possible? Just the same as "Windows" vs. "windows." Actually, I think they do get it, but they don't want "App Store" associated only w/ Apple so they can jump on the bandwagon and (continue to try to) confuse consumers.
Capitalization does not impact trademarks like you claim. "App Store" is the same as "app store".
Capitalization does not impact trademarks like you claim. "App Store" is the same as "app store".
Digitalclips
Mar 23, 08:40 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
My classic is full, mix of music from my CDs (and old LPs I digitized myself) and a few audio books. I've re ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rate on my Mac but cannot re sync my iPod now as it would overflow like mad. I'd love at least 220 GB. I've wondered about trying to do it myself but decided against it as I've no idea if it would work ... I should google that! ;)
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
My classic is full, mix of music from my CDs (and old LPs I digitized myself) and a few audio books. I've re ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rate on my Mac but cannot re sync my iPod now as it would overflow like mad. I'd love at least 220 GB. I've wondered about trying to do it myself but decided against it as I've no idea if it would work ... I should google that! ;)
.jpg "Best friend quotes and sayings")
flopticalcube
Nov 28, 02:32 PM
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
Console sales (http://nexgenwars.com/)
Go Wii!
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
Console sales (http://nexgenwars.com/)
Go Wii!
Tmelon
Apr 4, 07:34 PM
Then don't use full screen �? No one is forcing it on you.
I use full screen for mail on my 27". Would be useless to put Safari on FS on that size, but I can see why it would be useful on an 11" Air.
Similar with me. I have a 13" Macbook which really benefits from the ability to go into fullscreen. The extra screen space makes it much easier to concentrate. But when I'm at home I have it plugged into a 24" monitor I don't have a need for it.
I use full screen for mail on my 27". Would be useless to put Safari on FS on that size, but I can see why it would be useful on an 11" Air.
Similar with me. I have a 13" Macbook which really benefits from the ability to go into fullscreen. The extra screen space makes it much easier to concentrate. But when I'm at home I have it plugged into a 24" monitor I don't have a need for it.
barkmonster
Apr 27, 11:59 AM
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
czeluff
Oct 23, 12:03 PM
In my opinion, there is a VERY good possibility of the Macbook Pros being updated tomorrow. Here's Why:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Chad Z
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
If you look at the Macbook Pro's "last updated" section, you'll notice that it was April 24, 2006. Tomorrow will be October 24, exactly 6 month's difference. Coincidence? perhaps, but in my opinion if it's not tomorrow, it's not until late November.
Chad Z
whoooaaahhhh
Jul 14, 09:54 AM
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.
NO.
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best? If Blu-Ray doesn't win this war we'll have another short life-span format, this version of HD will not be enough for the professional industry much longer, take it from a video guy. I've written a frickin' paper on this very subject.
IMHO I'd like to see a Blu-Ray with the Mac Pro's to help solidify the consumer base into purchasing a better product, because that's how you standardize something in the market...sales...But I don't know that it will happen. Although remember DVD-RAM? Apple seemed to like that for awhile...that died...
I also don't want microsoft handling my video codec, anybody remember the wonderous creation of WMV/WMA? The one that like none of us can use on macs? HD-DVD's codec is a derivation of the WMV-HD codec. Welcome to the Microsoft reality. They really like controlling proprietary codecs. Also...MPEG was created by a group of companies and people working together, Microsoft created WMV, so they've got almost complete say in how that plays out.
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.
NO.
First of all, Blu-Ray discs are a completely new material and fabrication process, so highlighting the fact that they've only made 25GB discs (which were stable-ly created long before almost ANY HD-DVD's) and can't produce a disk which is far above the specs of the competition, is like saying screw the russians cuz they're space program hasn't sent a man to mars (nobody's done it yet, anyway). You can't blame Blu-Ray for not being able to deliver 50 GB yet, the meat of the war is just beginning anyway.
Secondly, what was said about the VC-1 codec is very wrong. Microsoft's VC-1 codec is far worse and more difficult to work with than MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 that sony will probably offer in later versions of Blu-Ray. All this malarky about artifacts doesn't really make sense when you consider that we've been USING MPEG2 IN DVD'S FOR YEARS NOW! There's no way that the algorithim could be to blame for the artifacts! Sure it's fatter, but it's a lighter compression, and as Sony has shown with their PCM Audio on Blu-Ray, sometimes light compression on a bigger disk is better than heavy compression on smaller disks. It will be a lot easier to change to a more efficient codec down the line (which is what we've done with computers time and time again, as well as professional video) so we can get Ultra HD on Blu Ray when it comes out as well.
I'm sorry, I understand people really want HD-DVD to win because it's easier and cheaper right now, but since when has the easiest option been the best? If Blu-Ray doesn't win this war we'll have another short life-span format, this version of HD will not be enough for the professional industry much longer, take it from a video guy. I've written a frickin' paper on this very subject.
IMHO I'd like to see a Blu-Ray with the Mac Pro's to help solidify the consumer base into purchasing a better product, because that's how you standardize something in the market...sales...But I don't know that it will happen. Although remember DVD-RAM? Apple seemed to like that for awhile...that died...
I also don't want microsoft handling my video codec, anybody remember the wonderous creation of WMV/WMA? The one that like none of us can use on macs? HD-DVD's codec is a derivation of the WMV-HD codec. Welcome to the Microsoft reality. They really like controlling proprietary codecs. Also...MPEG was created by a group of companies and people working together, Microsoft created WMV, so they've got almost complete say in how that plays out.
Hraggleblarg
Sep 29, 11:27 PM
Why is it so impossible to find an orange case? I'm so frustrated.
Belly-laughs
Aug 7, 04:40 AM
Why else would Intel advertise on the MacRumors Live Update page? :)
/user/me
Mar 23, 01:38 PM
No, no one is forced to do anything. Apple is more extreme with what they will and will not allow. Others follow suit b/c they know Apple changes the world. Android market allows practically everything.
As far as I know there's three rules that have to be followed when designing an iOS app.
1. No porn
2. no flash
3. it has to be approved.
I really dont' think that's too much to ask.... especially since Apple has complete ownership of the app store. Nbody's forcing you to get their procuts... If you dont' like it, buy an Android phone.
As far as I know there's three rules that have to be followed when designing an iOS app.
1. No porn
2. no flash
3. it has to be approved.
I really dont' think that's too much to ask.... especially since Apple has complete ownership of the app store. Nbody's forcing you to get their procuts... If you dont' like it, buy an Android phone.
chutch15
Sep 12, 03:12 PM
I just picked up the Belkin Grip Vue at BestBuy in Wilmington, DE. Very pleased.
mac-er
Jul 20, 08:19 AM
"We're not sitting around doing nothing," Apple said about the prospect that mobile phones may soon emerge as very capable digital music players and challenge the iPod.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
This was a pretty interesting quote AppleInsider had from the presentation.
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:12 PM
next step amd cpus
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
mc68k
Dec 18, 04:18 PM
i may add some more over the break
ADMProducer
Feb 20, 02:06 PM
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3229/screenshot20110220at200.png
emotion
Nov 27, 02:33 PM
Sorry, that link doesn't say anything about the 20" monitors referenced in the original thread.
The inference is that the technology used in the 20" versions of those displays is the same.
The inference is that the technology used in the 20" versions of those displays is the same.
Earendil
Nov 28, 11:02 AM
OK, this is out of hand... all of you who are complaining about Dell being half the price of the Apple LCDs read the topic that's been linked like 5 times, it's pretty interesting and informative.
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
Now, all of you who are complaining about those people complain shut up and listen (or read) for a minute. They aren't complaining that Apple is charging to much for what they are offering, it's that they aren't offering any alternative for non-pro users. There are people who want, and would pay a bit more than Dell prices, for a similar piece of hardware with Apple's quality and design, but they aren't willing to pay 50%+ more for a professional grade piece of hardware.
A small few are saying that. I believe the rest finally got the point or actually went to the linked article. As the most vocal poster in the last 24 hours though, I'd like to point out I've concede the point above numerous times, and fully agree with t. I myself am a victim of Apple not offering a consumer level machine :(
A 17" consumer line of displays would solve the problem without negatively effecting the pro line of hardware. If it sold well (and I'm betting it would, especially if it was the same panel as the 17" iMac with a USB2 hub, iSight, and built in speakers in an iPod styled casing for ~$249) a 19" with the same features but a higher res (although all the 19" widescreens I've seen have had the same res as 17" WS ... someone must make a 19" panel with res between 1440x900 and 1680x1050) for ~$349 or so it'd really fill out Apple product line to meet the needs of all consumers, "prosumers", and real pros.
Man, if they did that I might pick up a MacMini next summer as well!
Here's to dreaming :)
toddybody
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
There may be space in the Macbook Pros for a non-mobile video card, but the impact to battery life would be way beyond what I think Apple would tolerate.
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
Benguitar
Nov 25, 11:18 PM
^^^^^Could I recommend a case for that?
:D
/facepalm
He's pretty tough on stuff, That's why I didn't get him a nano because it has a screen.
I wish I could find a pelican for a shuffle.. :p
Seriously though, Stop, I don't wanna get banned for spamming this thread.
:D
/facepalm
He's pretty tough on stuff, That's why I didn't get him a nano because it has a screen.
I wish I could find a pelican for a shuffle.. :p
Seriously though, Stop, I don't wanna get banned for spamming this thread.
Takuro
Apr 3, 02:04 AM
Not sure if this is new to DP2, but if you go to System Preferences -> Appearance -> Sidebar icon size
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
You can now make the sidebar icons large, medium, or small.
Here's a preview of "large:"
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9610/40411461.png
EDIT: This setting also affects Mail.app's sidebar icon size. It seems this is meant to act as a unified systemwide setting that multiple applications, not only finder, will rely upon.
The only real complaint I have about this feature is that "small" is 0.9x the scale of "medium," and "large" is about 4.0x the scale of "medium." In other words, "small" and "medium" are about the same size, and "large" is a big jump. Apple would have been better off to have made the three sizes a little more uniformly ranged from one another so that "medium" is a bit bigger and "small" becomes what "medium" had been.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 04:16 PM
The RS's are very nice i used to have a Mk 1 RS the limited edition blue one they did 4500 cars of.
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
MattI have to agree. I probably wouldn't buy one myself, even if I could. But I'd love to drive one just try it out. As it is I think my JCW was too much, but it's a hell of a fun car to drive, and very fast around a circuit.
Americans mostly don't get the allure of a rallye type car. Ovals and 1/4 mile are about as sophisticated as we can manage. :p
The ST's are not much different still have the 2.5 Turbo 5 cylinder engine but only 225bhp. I'm looking at the Mountune Kit with takes it to 260bhp for �1200.
But the new one is to much money �28,000 you can buy much nicer cars with that sort of money.
MattI have to agree. I probably wouldn't buy one myself, even if I could. But I'd love to drive one just try it out. As it is I think my JCW was too much, but it's a hell of a fun car to drive, and very fast around a circuit.
Americans mostly don't get the allure of a rallye type car. Ovals and 1/4 mile are about as sophisticated as we can manage. :p
Maestro64
Nov 28, 04:03 PM
The Zune is now placing 48 position on Amazon, so not moving in a positive direction
LaMerVipere
Aug 7, 12:56 AM
Maybe I'm reading to much into this... but did anyone else notice that Apple has all of their products on that big banner except for the full-size iPod and the Xserve? Could it be that the new iPod will certainly be released then, and that its banner is hidden?
Hmm, that is interesting. I hadn't thought of that...
Hmm, that is interesting. I hadn't thought of that...
fr4c
Nov 23, 11:22 PM
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)