- Toyota Corolla Terra Special
- Toyota+corolla+2001+ce
- Toyota Corolla E11. 1996-2001
- Pictures of TOYOTA COROLLA
- Toyota Corolla 2001 -
- auto Toyota+corolla+2001
- 2001 toyota corolla $6500
- Toyota Corolla 2001 Hatchback
- Toyota Corolla 2001 Le.
- Toyota Corolla 2001 - 2007
- 2007 Toyota Corolla Axio 1.8
- 2001 Toyota Corolla CE001.jpg
- Toyota Corolla Runx 2001
- 2001 TOYOTA COROLLA TERRA
- TOYOTA COROLLA XE 2001 IN MOST
- 2001 Toyota Corolla. Price:
- Toyota Corolla 2001 -
- Toyota Corolla Spacio 2001
- 2001 Toyota Corolla CE,
SPUY767
Jul 18, 08:32 AM
Lets see how they make this happen, movies are big downloads (or so im told :p ;) ) people wont like spending a lot of time downloading a file only for it to become completely useless a while later. But if it increases the content in the iTMS then so be it!
A 3 Meg Connections is sufficient to stream Apple's HD trailers in 1080i. I really don't think that there would be a problem buffering a movie for ten minutes or so and then playing it all the way through, especially if they were 720p.
A 3 Meg Connections is sufficient to stream Apple's HD trailers in 1080i. I really don't think that there would be a problem buffering a movie for ten minutes or so and then playing it all the way through, especially if they were 720p.
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
liketom
Jul 19, 04:20 PM
Which is exactly why the past few weeks have been a great time to load up on Apple stock. Apple has been increasing computer sales with transitional computers. The "real" machines aren't out yet.
In other words, Apple growth won't be slowing down any time soon. In fact, it should probably accelerate over the next 12 months.
with a little help from us Mac users out here who end up buying 2 Macs or more a year ;)
i tell you this year is getting real expensive for me , Mac Mini Intel then the Black Book and later this year the new Mac Pro and just don't even talk about iPods yet :D Apple is skinting me worse then a divorce
In other words, Apple growth won't be slowing down any time soon. In fact, it should probably accelerate over the next 12 months.
with a little help from us Mac users out here who end up buying 2 Macs or more a year ;)
i tell you this year is getting real expensive for me , Mac Mini Intel then the Black Book and later this year the new Mac Pro and just don't even talk about iPods yet :D Apple is skinting me worse then a divorce
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
No, and I just googled it and it appears to be just a product review site?
To what are you referring?
Sorry, failed to include a :rolleyes: , and just happened to hit on something that actually exists.
I could have easily used LoseFaceBook, but I thought the other rolled off the tongue better. :o
To what are you referring?
Sorry, failed to include a :rolleyes: , and just happened to hit on something that actually exists.
I could have easily used LoseFaceBook, but I thought the other rolled off the tongue better. :o
lordonuthin
Jan 21, 07:19 PM
congrats to whiterabbit for 7 million points!
Thanks. points will be down for a bit cuz of power and internet outage caused by too much ICE. I will get everything going again tonight when I get home.
Thanks. points will be down for a bit cuz of power and internet outage caused by too much ICE. I will get everything going again tonight when I get home.
jav6454
Mar 24, 10:27 PM
Ehhh...you're right that it's no 1200watt corsair. But it supports dual CPUs, crap ton of ram, and 5770x2 or 5870...surely it could support a 6970(from a tdp perspective)
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
alexpaul
Mar 23, 05:11 AM
Of course! No need to do this. Apple can try something innovative on the existing iPod classic like adding bluetooth etc. That would be pretty handy :)
mrapplegate
Apr 6, 11:36 AM
So when you click on the Launchpad icon everything comes up smooth and no delay/lag or doesn't act sluggish? just the opening of folders ?
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
Launchpad instantly opens for me. There is a 1/2 second or less lag when folders open and close. Moving between pages there is no delay.
There's lag for me launching launchpad and also scrolling through its pages and going/creating folders. However I do believe this will be fixed later on as it can't be that demanding to run OSX LION
Launchpad instantly opens for me. There is a 1/2 second or less lag when folders open and close. Moving between pages there is no delay.
tblrsa
Mar 28, 03:12 PM
The iPod Classic is the best iPod ever released, period. I love it since day 1. Only downside is you can�t use it for sports, due to its sensitive hard drive. The device does look awesome, goes well with my aluminum book.
..is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...
Sounds like an awesome idea for a new Classic.
..is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...
Sounds like an awesome idea for a new Classic.
FleurDuMal
Jan 1, 06:02 PM
Pfft...they shamefully overlooked my rumour :rolleyes:
YS2003
Oct 23, 10:37 PM
FWI Dell Just Lowered The List Of All Their Monitors •*30" $1279 24" $679 Right Now (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). We paid $1349 last week in a sale and now it's been trumped. New 30" list is only $1599 and 24" list is $799.
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
A quick question. Does Dell's 30" monitor have the AC adaptor which covers 100 V to 240 V and 50 Hz - 60 Hz? The spec on 24" showed it does. But, I was not able see that spec on 30".
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
A quick question. Does Dell's 30" monitor have the AC adaptor which covers 100 V to 240 V and 50 Hz - 60 Hz? The spec on 24" showed it does. But, I was not able see that spec on 30".
~Shard~
Nov 23, 06:34 AM
SideNote: The Madonna Concert in HD on NBC tonight is groundbreaking broadcast television. One of the most amazing telecasts I have ever seen-heard.
The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:
The fact that it is in HD? I suppose so. The concert itself groundbreaking? Well, hopefully that's not what you meant or else you've obviously never seen a show across the pond... :p ;) :cool:
rdowns
Nov 28, 04:30 PM
Perhaps Microsoft should have a "switch" campaign like Apple for the Zune. Showing all the wonderful things like radio and squirting music and photos.
Radio, puhleeze. Isn't that why we have iPods? So we don't have to listen to crappy repetitive manufactured artist radio.
Squirting, huh? - I'll coin the term now. Zune Splooge™ - squirting a crappy song to my Zune.
Radio, puhleeze. Isn't that why we have iPods? So we don't have to listen to crappy repetitive manufactured artist radio.
Squirting, huh? - I'll coin the term now. Zune Splooge™ - squirting a crappy song to my Zune.
Killyp
Aug 7, 05:26 AM
It says Vista 2.0, not 2...
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
Can we please talk about the subject of the thread, not about shagging farmyard animals?
_iCeb0x_
Jan 12, 11:36 AM
I figured out the secret air message!
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
What falls out of the air? ... Apple (s)
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples fall out of a tree.
Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under the tree and the damn Apple hit his head.
peestandingup
Jul 16, 06:54 PM
That's only because one of the biggest brands keeps using it. I honestly can't think of anything Sony doesn't make that uses MS besides card readers.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
Yup. Plus, Sony has LOTS of consumer based digital cameras on the market. Most normal people are still new to digital cameras, so they see a bunch of Sony's on sale at Best Buy & they're like "Oh, Sony. I heard they make good cameras." So, they buy one & the salesman says "Hey, you need a memory stick with that." Customer pays it without really looking at other options & Sony just sold to another noob sucker.
Thats why Memory Stick is so popular with average consumers, but not with serious amateurs & pros. They know better.
Even sony must realize its not gonna be such a good idea long term...some of their better cameras don't use it- the new Digital SLR has an adapter to use it- it uses a real professional media format instead.
Yup. Plus, Sony has LOTS of consumer based digital cameras on the market. Most normal people are still new to digital cameras, so they see a bunch of Sony's on sale at Best Buy & they're like "Oh, Sony. I heard they make good cameras." So, they buy one & the salesman says "Hey, you need a memory stick with that." Customer pays it without really looking at other options & Sony just sold to another noob sucker.
Thats why Memory Stick is so popular with average consumers, but not with serious amateurs & pros. They know better.
atticus18244fsa
Mar 22, 10:52 PM
lots, Bluetooth, WIFI (for internet radio), design..
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
I would buy this if it was 220gb. Great mockup
Here's my classic mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=277273&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1300734199
I would buy this if it was 220gb. Great mockup
mrthieme
Nov 29, 06:00 PM
The concept of internet based content is very attractive, bandwidth issues aside. I pay too much money for too many channels I don't need/want. And I don't want to watch when NBC tells me too. A selective subscription to the media I'm interested in is just what I want. The lowered cost associated with online distribution versus a whole network of channels being pumped into every home opens the door for the little guys with very focused content to get stuff out there, just like podcasts, and hopefully make enough money to keep improving their material.
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:01 PM
The basic process of "This is my source, this is my output" has been around as long as film editing.
The variety of source formats is going to continue to expand. Sure, some common standards emerge, such as hard drives and flash media, but just because in the past there was only one origination and one output format doesn't mean that this is the way the process has to work, or is somehow intrinsically superior.
The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Yes, and that is my point. I grant that, in the early days, when computers were new and computer based editing was seeking adoption from an industry full of professionals who had been doing it the same way for 20-30 years-- it made a lot of sense to emulate the workflow that they were using.
Now that computer editing has existed for a couple decades (give or take) the fact that it started out emulating the old methods is not, ipso facto, proof that it should continue to work the old ways.
The variety of source formats is going to continue to expand. Sure, some common standards emerge, such as hard drives and flash media, but just because in the past there was only one origination and one output format doesn't mean that this is the way the process has to work, or is somehow intrinsically superior.
The overall look of video editing, be it tape to tape, or the current (FC7) editing layout is more or less the same. In points, out points, etc.
Yes, and that is my point. I grant that, in the early days, when computers were new and computer based editing was seeking adoption from an industry full of professionals who had been doing it the same way for 20-30 years-- it made a lot of sense to emulate the workflow that they were using.
Now that computer editing has existed for a couple decades (give or take) the fact that it started out emulating the old methods is not, ipso facto, proof that it should continue to work the old ways.
appleguy123
Mar 19, 05:12 PM
Have you not been informed of DisgraceBook??
No, and I just googled it and it appears to be just a product review site?
To what are you referring?
No, and I just googled it and it appears to be just a product review site?
To what are you referring?
LethalWolfe
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
You mean made easier to use?
No, I'll take easier to use in a heartbeat unless the way they made it easier to use was to dumb it down. Making something better and making something easier to use aren't necessarily the same thing. An automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual transmission but there are a host of reasons why manual transmission are the better choice.
Lots of the changes to FCP X look very promising. The 'enhanced' labeling/tagging feature for clips sounds great. As does their new stab at having an 'open timeline' (hopefully it works out much better than their current attempt at it). The easy color matching between shots could save me a ton of tedious work that I hate doing assuming it works properly.
I'm not against change itself I'm just against change for the worse or change for the sake of change.
Lethal
No, I'll take easier to use in a heartbeat unless the way they made it easier to use was to dumb it down. Making something better and making something easier to use aren't necessarily the same thing. An automatic transmission is easier to use than a manual transmission but there are a host of reasons why manual transmission are the better choice.
Lots of the changes to FCP X look very promising. The 'enhanced' labeling/tagging feature for clips sounds great. As does their new stab at having an 'open timeline' (hopefully it works out much better than their current attempt at it). The easy color matching between shots could save me a ton of tedious work that I hate doing assuming it works properly.
I'm not against change itself I'm just against change for the worse or change for the sake of change.
Lethal
lordonuthin
Feb 17, 12:16 AM
dang. well all my computers are down back at my apartment, so my production will be very little. i just started folding on my mbp with an a3 unit, so we'll see how it goes
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
Sorry to hear that, when will you be able to get back to your apartment to get everything started again?
My points are down too for some reason, not sure what the problem is as everything is running ok.
paradox00
May 3, 01:12 PM
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Some windows uninstallers leave a ton of crap behind too, more that the library files that are left behind on a mac (which can easily be found and removed). I think you need to get over your concerns with the consequences of dragging something to the trash in OSX just because that won't work well on Windows.
PS: Why is leaving behind a text file so you can easily restore your settings a bad thing?
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Some windows uninstallers leave a ton of crap behind too, more that the library files that are left behind on a mac (which can easily be found and removed). I think you need to get over your concerns with the consequences of dragging something to the trash in OSX just because that won't work well on Windows.
PS: Why is leaving behind a text file so you can easily restore your settings a bad thing?
takao
Jan 12, 02:33 PM
thinking back how many people called the iPod, mac mini and macbook name stupid it's very likely already confirmed
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
on the other side it would be much more logical to refer to wimax or other such features
Post Title
→Toyota Corolla 2001
Post URL
→http://givealotlosealot.blogspot.com/2011/05/toyota-corolla-2001.html
Visit give a lot lose a lot for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
