SilianRail
Apr 14, 04:58 PM
Using the 3.0 drive, the 10-gigabyte folder transferred to the U.S.B. 3.0 drive in 6 minutes, 31 seconds (write speed). The U.S.B. 2.0 drive took 22 minutes, 14 seconds to copy the same 10-gig folder.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
anim8or
Aug 31, 12:58 PM
No way,
Glossy screen is the worst thing for professionals that depend on color accuracy.
As for the Isight, I think they will keep off from the Cinema displays. They will make an smaller format stand alone IMHO.
I don't think a Special Event will happen for these products.
I totally wholeheartedly agree the glossy screens are not a always an advantage, if they do it as an option for those who want it then cool but not as standard please!
Glossy screen is the worst thing for professionals that depend on color accuracy.
As for the Isight, I think they will keep off from the Cinema displays. They will make an smaller format stand alone IMHO.
I don't think a Special Event will happen for these products.
I totally wholeheartedly agree the glossy screens are not a always an advantage, if they do it as an option for those who want it then cool but not as standard please!
mr.suff
Sep 18, 04:45 PM
By definition, 10MP phone cannot be as grainy as a 3MP phone. You do realize when someone says 10MegaPixel phone what they mean right?.
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).
its not 10 million pixels per square inch. 10 million pixels is the overall size of the image ie x by y, at about 150-300 dpi, i think, but its defo not 10mp per inch^2
but anything above 3-5 mp in a phone becomes a useless waste because the sensor is stupid small.
matt
10 million pixels per square inch (before the tech police come out, this is a basic definition. I am aware an image does not have to be a square).
its not 10 million pixels per square inch. 10 million pixels is the overall size of the image ie x by y, at about 150-300 dpi, i think, but its defo not 10mp per inch^2
but anything above 3-5 mp in a phone becomes a useless waste because the sensor is stupid small.
matt
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 06:59 PM
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
$14.99 for new movies, but $9.99 for older films supposedly.
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
Honestly though, it remains be seen until people are able to use the new service, but I have a feeling it will do quite well, even if it is geared for a small screen (with the option to watch fullscreen in iTunes on your computer.) Who knows though? The PSP UMD movie format is dead. But I think that's due to Sony's poor marketing and DVD comparable cost of UMD movies than anything else.
And yes, go ahead and sell your PSP. You'll feel better. I did, and I do. :)
$14.99 for new movies, but $9.99 for older films supposedly.
Some movies aren't much longer than hour long TV shows, and people have been downloading those regularly from iTunes. And like I said, there are a lot of people out there already downloading movies from the internet. My guess is there are also a lot of people who would love to have an easy option to get their movies online, but aren't tech savvy enough to know what bit-torrent is, or where to find illegal torrent sites, etc. Those types of people would probably jump all over an easy to access and use movie downlaod site. iTunes already has a great reputation, so consumer comfort is high with Apple in that regard.
Honestly though, it remains be seen until people are able to use the new service, but I have a feeling it will do quite well, even if it is geared for a small screen (with the option to watch fullscreen in iTunes on your computer.) Who knows though? The PSP UMD movie format is dead. But I think that's due to Sony's poor marketing and DVD comparable cost of UMD movies than anything else.
And yes, go ahead and sell your PSP. You'll feel better. I did, and I do. :)
silentnite
Apr 20, 08:38 PM
Samsung, yes your honor, how do you plead? Guilty as charged:D
gregorypierce
Apr 11, 02:28 AM
Unlikely - this would require the new private key be embedded in the firmware update package, which would defeat the purpose of replacing the old key.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
Indeed, because any company that tries to take advantage of that can almost certainly be sued by Apple with little issue.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
Indeed, because any company that tries to take advantage of that can almost certainly be sued by Apple with little issue.
CmdrLaForge
Apr 23, 12:10 AM
you're probably the guy that's mad that apple tv is not 1080p even though content isn't available. lol
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
That the content isn't available is purely Apples fault and btw - as I would like to use the Apple TV mainly for slideshows - the content is available.
And yes, I want the Apple TV to support 1080p60. I have high hopes for the a5.
have you used airplay? it works awesome.
That the content isn't available is purely Apples fault and btw - as I would like to use the Apple TV mainly for slideshows - the content is available.
And yes, I want the Apple TV to support 1080p60. I have high hopes for the a5.
bedifferent
May 4, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
What has Apple done since the iPhone:
snip
I think I covered enough :)
__________________
u mad bro?
Seriously though. Most of that is just you being angry at apple. It has nothing to do with the Mac Pro. At all. Not including a blu-ray drive is a FAR bigger nuisance to consumers than it is to professional users, yet you list it because, what? You're angry?
Apple has no reason to discontinue the Mac Pro.
No "bro," not mad at all, are you? There are more important things in the world to be mad about. Was just agreeing with another members comments. Don't want to discuss it further as it seems to be making others mad that I expressed my opinion. My apologies.
And yes, most of my comments are in regard to professional users. It is rather frustrating that new users to Apple who came onboard with the iPhone and iOS, etc get upset with users who carried Apple through the many years they were borderline bankrupt before Jobs returned. Most don't even know what RI means or the difference bet IPS and S-IPS panels or that graphic designers almost always use hoods with non-antiglare displays as anti-glare disperses the pixels making fine editing difficult.
My only point now is that Apple has dropped us, prosumers, for the masses of Soccer mom's and fashionista's with iPhones, iMacs and iPads. Funny how even Annie Leibovitz has left Apple systems due to this and that many in the film industry who invested thousands in Apple pro apps and hardware have switched platforms.
However, this isn't a topic a lot of the newbies know or understand, so instead of discussing it civilly they get obnoxious and defensive.
PS when did I state that Apple may discontinue the Mac Pro? I stated their focus has shifted, you're over reaching and reading emotions that don't exist in my comment(s).
What has Apple done since the iPhone:
snip
I think I covered enough :)
__________________
u mad bro?
Seriously though. Most of that is just you being angry at apple. It has nothing to do with the Mac Pro. At all. Not including a blu-ray drive is a FAR bigger nuisance to consumers than it is to professional users, yet you list it because, what? You're angry?
Apple has no reason to discontinue the Mac Pro.
No "bro," not mad at all, are you? There are more important things in the world to be mad about. Was just agreeing with another members comments. Don't want to discuss it further as it seems to be making others mad that I expressed my opinion. My apologies.
And yes, most of my comments are in regard to professional users. It is rather frustrating that new users to Apple who came onboard with the iPhone and iOS, etc get upset with users who carried Apple through the many years they were borderline bankrupt before Jobs returned. Most don't even know what RI means or the difference bet IPS and S-IPS panels or that graphic designers almost always use hoods with non-antiglare displays as anti-glare disperses the pixels making fine editing difficult.
My only point now is that Apple has dropped us, prosumers, for the masses of Soccer mom's and fashionista's with iPhones, iMacs and iPads. Funny how even Annie Leibovitz has left Apple systems due to this and that many in the film industry who invested thousands in Apple pro apps and hardware have switched platforms.
However, this isn't a topic a lot of the newbies know or understand, so instead of discussing it civilly they get obnoxious and defensive.
PS when did I state that Apple may discontinue the Mac Pro? I stated their focus has shifted, you're over reaching and reading emotions that don't exist in my comment(s).
cmaier
Nov 13, 09:13 PM
Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?
Have you even read a single thing I've said? You are defaming me - I'm an intellectual property attorney and don't advocate stealing anyone's intellectual property. So let me repeat what I've said multiple times, this time using small words:
1) Apple has every RIGHT (taking into account waiver, exhaustion/first sale doctrine, and fair use) to use its copyright to limit the license to the icons
2) Apple has every RIGHT to decide what goes into the app store
3) Apple is being stupid in exercising these rights in this case.
Have you even read a single thing I've said? You are defaming me - I'm an intellectual property attorney and don't advocate stealing anyone's intellectual property. So let me repeat what I've said multiple times, this time using small words:
1) Apple has every RIGHT (taking into account waiver, exhaustion/first sale doctrine, and fair use) to use its copyright to limit the license to the icons
2) Apple has every RIGHT to decide what goes into the app store
3) Apple is being stupid in exercising these rights in this case.
bleaknik
Mar 22, 02:10 PM
Perfect, just the news I've been waiting for. Currently have an Early-2008 model which I purchased in September just in need of a bit more power really! Also welcoming the extra USB ports and built in SD reader, Thunderbolt on the newer ones will be nice for an external HDD!
The built-in optical drive on my iMac seems broken too, keeps spitting out disks! :(
Looking forward to the new models!
Spitting out disks! I had problems with the slot loading drives in my Mac Mini and Macbook Pros. It was greatly improved with a $10 DVD/CD cleaning kit. Worth giving a shot...
The built-in optical drive on my iMac seems broken too, keeps spitting out disks! :(
Looking forward to the new models!
Spitting out disks! I had problems with the slot loading drives in my Mac Mini and Macbook Pros. It was greatly improved with a $10 DVD/CD cleaning kit. Worth giving a shot...
prady16
Sep 6, 10:00 AM
I came across this interesting article which says that Amazon is also planning to offer movies online in its store and that it has almost finalized deals with at least 3 of the big studios.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-movies6sep06,0,6420529.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-movies6sep06,0,6420529.story?coll=la-home-headlines
siii
Apr 4, 12:07 PM
Only in America.... Bad form unless it was in defence. How about non lethal take downs, fair courts and appropriate justice, such as jail with community service, get criminals doing something constructive for society and trying to get them back on track?
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
The right to carry guns and to kill absolutely baffles me. Surely shooting and killing is a worser crime than stealing? The threat of being shot/killed sounds too authoritarian/totalitarian for me.
I can't believe the mentality of people on these forums sometimes! Each to their own I guess... Democracy and all...
Squire
Sep 4, 06:55 PM
Sounds more viable for video then a 3 inch screen on a portable hard drive.
Why not both?
-Squire
Why not both?
-Squire
CalfCanuck
Sep 14, 07:16 PM
That'd be very nice, but I think that's too niche for Apple to get into. Although Apple does take its photography seriously, it only really produces hardware that is versatile and can be used for many different tasks - i.e. although the Mac Pro is serious photograhpy equipment, it can also be serious movie editing or CAD equipment. Infact, I can't think of any hardware made by Apple that is specifically photography directed.
Then again, there's nothing to say they won't break the habit of a lifetime.
While I have nothing to back up this idea beyond wild speculation, it makes sense if you think about it for a while.
I used the name "Aperture.iPod" just for this thread. I think the APerture features would be targeted to special audience, but even the Photo uploading features (plus integration into iPhoto) would give it the broader appeal you correctly discuss.
Several reason why this might happen:
1. Apple has had a product called the Photo iPod since October 2004. The fact that few of it's users probably use it for Photos merely points out that it failed in it's targeted market for a number of reasons (probably lack of easy uploading from cameras when not at a computer, small screen, and lack of support for RAW).
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
So why will Apple start selling a video size that isn't designed for the current iPod? While it could be for the "iTV" device, I'd image that is a bit too small a resolution to get people excited about. And even if it is, why start selling it 6 months before the device ships?
3. If Apple was to introduce a new Video iPod with a larger screen, this new larger box would allow a number of things that can''t fit on a small iPod and are perfect for both video AND photography - a large 640 x 480 screen, FW or USB2 connections, and potentially CF/SD card slots (or at least an IO for a fast adapter via the USB2 connection.)
Hence my conclusion (based on pure speculation) - all these things point to a dual use device. Handheld, but larger than normal iPods, and suitable for both consumer video playback AND photography.
What better place to introduce this than the biggest consumer photo show in the world?
Then again, there's nothing to say they won't break the habit of a lifetime.
While I have nothing to back up this idea beyond wild speculation, it makes sense if you think about it for a while.
I used the name "Aperture.iPod" just for this thread. I think the APerture features would be targeted to special audience, but even the Photo uploading features (plus integration into iPhoto) would give it the broader appeal you correctly discuss.
Several reason why this might happen:
1. Apple has had a product called the Photo iPod since October 2004. The fact that few of it's users probably use it for Photos merely points out that it failed in it's targeted market for a number of reasons (probably lack of easy uploading from cameras when not at a computer, small screen, and lack of support for RAW).
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
So why will Apple start selling a video size that isn't designed for the current iPod? While it could be for the "iTV" device, I'd image that is a bit too small a resolution to get people excited about. And even if it is, why start selling it 6 months before the device ships?
3. If Apple was to introduce a new Video iPod with a larger screen, this new larger box would allow a number of things that can''t fit on a small iPod and are perfect for both video AND photography - a large 640 x 480 screen, FW or USB2 connections, and potentially CF/SD card slots (or at least an IO for a fast adapter via the USB2 connection.)
Hence my conclusion (based on pure speculation) - all these things point to a dual use device. Handheld, but larger than normal iPods, and suitable for both consumer video playback AND photography.
What better place to introduce this than the biggest consumer photo show in the world?
strike1555
Nov 15, 08:58 AM
Aristotle has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about, LOL.
MattyMac
Sep 9, 10:17 AM
I want to see some unpacking pics of that 24inch model compared with the 20in. Soon enough I suppose.
Daveway
Sep 6, 03:49 PM
Ship times on the Airport Extreme have been pushed back 1-3 weeks. Anyone else notice?
tortoise
Sep 15, 06:37 PM
The phones are said to include high-end features such as a 3-megapixel camera
Who the hell needs a 3MP camera on a phone? The optics are horrendous (never mind the sensor element), so there is really no good use for that kind of resolution. I'd rather they put the money elsewhere...
Who the hell needs a 3MP camera on a phone? The optics are horrendous (never mind the sensor element), so there is really no good use for that kind of resolution. I'd rather they put the money elsewhere...
Umbongo
Apr 30, 04:16 PM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
Tommyg117
Sep 15, 06:07 PM
ok, but what cell phone provider are they going to use? Cingular? Verizon? I have verizon and really want them to have it.
aloshka
Apr 4, 12:00 PM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
Well if there are no real consequences to carrying a gun, and shooting it at guards since I might only be facing jail time, it sounds like criminals should try more often. I mean hell, that's a big safety net, they should have tried banks better pay off and they can try multiple times since the only consequence is possible jail time.
Well if there are no real consequences to carrying a gun, and shooting it at guards since I might only be facing jail time, it sounds like criminals should try more often. I mean hell, that's a big safety net, they should have tried banks better pay off and they can try multiple times since the only consequence is possible jail time.
Fukui
Sep 19, 04:16 PM
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Yea, I see. I wouldn't be surprised if they were letterboxed... I would rather wait till a tv show comes out "widescreen" and see for myself for 1.99 then 9.99 and be dissapointed...
Hopefully, over time, the quality will get better. It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle... so maybe it all depends on the iPod getting a better screen and processor...
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 05:04 PM
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
milo
Sep 19, 05:23 PM
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect.
Absolutely not. He said 30 minutes on a fast connection, pointing out SPECIFICALLY what speed connection is needed for that. If you interpreted it as "average users" will get that speed, you just weren't listening.
If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
I think the major problem with external hardrives, is that iTunes will organises all your content into the Music folder. I just bought a 300GB drive and would love to place all my movies in their, but at the same time I want my music on my Mac (not the external). Apple really needs to address the storage features in iTunes, as movies are large files.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
Absolutely not. He said 30 minutes on a fast connection, pointing out SPECIFICALLY what speed connection is needed for that. If you interpreted it as "average users" will get that speed, you just weren't listening.
If I want to take my iBook on the road with me, then how are the other people in my house going to access the Movies and other media via iTV if it's stored on my iBook or some "external HD" which requires a host computer to be of any use.
How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
I think the major problem with external hardrives, is that iTunes will organises all your content into the Music folder. I just bought a 300GB drive and would love to place all my movies in their, but at the same time I want my music on my Mac (not the external). Apple really needs to address the storage features in iTunes, as movies are large files.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.