Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:44 PM
It's crap that is no longer needed.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
rdrr
Nov 28, 07:42 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
If the record labels would stop forcing artist to pump out albums with ten bad songs and only one or two good ones, then maybe I would consider spending more than 15 dollars for a CD.
I don't expect something for nothing, but I do expect quality for every dollar I spend.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
If the record labels would stop forcing artist to pump out albums with ten bad songs and only one or two good ones, then maybe I would consider spending more than 15 dollars for a CD.
I don't expect something for nothing, but I do expect quality for every dollar I spend.
portishead
Apr 12, 02:44 AM
Are you saying you would prefer they give it the ability to use more memory before they give it the ability to use more processing cores? Because that's the only thing 64bit is going to give you.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
GenesisST
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
Can't we just all get along?:-)
The pissing contest continues taking on comical character.
As an iphone user I have a great device that does what I want it to do. The least of that is actually making phone calls.
It's beautifully integrated with all my Apple stuff.
The Android users have their iphone and ios copy phones. (Hello Mr. Schmidt, nice stealing)
If the Androids and Windoof phones do what their consumers need them to do be happy.
Why would I even care if open or closed. I have no personal advantages if Mr. Rubin has to eat his words or they make changes. Technology is ever evolving.
As a famous politician once said: What do I care about what I said yesterday?
May the better product win, copy and all. If the iphone starts to suck and there are better alternatives for me, I'll switch and so will plenty of others.
Same the other way around.
Objectivity, here? It's like thinking in church... BLASPHEMY!
The pissing contest continues taking on comical character.
As an iphone user I have a great device that does what I want it to do. The least of that is actually making phone calls.
It's beautifully integrated with all my Apple stuff.
The Android users have their iphone and ios copy phones. (Hello Mr. Schmidt, nice stealing)
If the Androids and Windoof phones do what their consumers need them to do be happy.
Why would I even care if open or closed. I have no personal advantages if Mr. Rubin has to eat his words or they make changes. Technology is ever evolving.
As a famous politician once said: What do I care about what I said yesterday?
May the better product win, copy and all. If the iphone starts to suck and there are better alternatives for me, I'll switch and so will plenty of others.
Same the other way around.
Objectivity, here? It's like thinking in church... BLASPHEMY!
gnasher729
Aug 18, 03:31 PM
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
It only shows that one company can expect to get massive complaints from its customers soon about its crappy software. An H.264 encoder can easily use two dozen cores if they are there (apart from the fact that it might be limited by the speed of the DVD drive if you encode straight from DVD); there is no reason at all why this software shouldn't be twice as fast on a Quad core and four times as fast on an eight core machine.
It only shows that one company can expect to get massive complaints from its customers soon about its crappy software. An H.264 encoder can easily use two dozen cores if they are there (apart from the fact that it might be limited by the speed of the DVD drive if you encode straight from DVD); there is no reason at all why this software shouldn't be twice as fast on a Quad core and four times as fast on an eight core machine.
davidcmc
Mar 22, 03:01 PM
Come: present tense. See: iPad2
Will come: future tense. See: Samsung tablet.
May come: conditional tense. See: RIM tablet.
The prices are official. Stop this fanboy **** about "it's not released yet".
Xoom has been released and sells well, although not so much as the iPad, but it still grabs some market share.
You people keep trying to find problems where there are no problems.
It's an official announcement, the tablets are officially coming with an official price that makes real front to the iPad, you accepting it or not.
It's like you fanboy people hate the fact that competitors are doing well.
The Galaxy Tab 8.9 and 10.1 are thinner than the iPad 2, that must be too much for fanboys hearts.
Will come: future tense. See: Samsung tablet.
May come: conditional tense. See: RIM tablet.
The prices are official. Stop this fanboy **** about "it's not released yet".
Xoom has been released and sells well, although not so much as the iPad, but it still grabs some market share.
You people keep trying to find problems where there are no problems.
It's an official announcement, the tablets are officially coming with an official price that makes real front to the iPad, you accepting it or not.
It's like you fanboy people hate the fact that competitors are doing well.
The Galaxy Tab 8.9 and 10.1 are thinner than the iPad 2, that must be too much for fanboys hearts.
akdj
Apr 6, 11:01 AM
Have any of you been able to use Sandy Bridge hardware h.264 on the MBP for your AVC files?
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
typecase
Sep 19, 12:33 AM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
pdpfilms
Aug 11, 10:37 AM
"...Earlier than some may be expecting"??
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
Wasn't everyone expecting this a year ago?
NAG
Mar 31, 04:45 PM
I don't think it is evil. It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. Removing Google as search is probably going to be a huge no-no. It is kind of dumb that anyone has even tried to do that... That is part of the problem. Some of the carriers/manufacturers are stupid.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
Evangelion
Sep 13, 01:10 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
Uh, last time I checked, Windows can take advantage of multiple cores just fine. Do you think that multithreading is some Black Magic that only MacOS can do? Hell, standard Linux from kernel.org can use 512 cores as we speak!
Related to this: Maybe not 512-way SMP, but here (http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/IP27_boot_messages) is what it looks like when Linux boots on 128-way SGI Origin supercomputer. Note, the kernel that is booting is 2.4.1, which was released in early 2001. Things have progressed A LOT since those day.
OS X works with quad core == "Ahead of technology curve"... puhleeze!
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support
Windows works just fine with dual-core. It really does. To Wndows, dual-core is more or less similar to typical SMP, and Windows has supported SMP since Windows NT!
I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores.
Any reason why it wouldn't work? And did you even read the Anandtech-article? They conducted their benchmarks in Windows XP! So it obviously DID work with four cores! And it DID show substantial improvement in performance in real-life apps! Sheesh! Dial tone that fanboysihness a bit, dude.
blahblah100
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:39 PM
It is more like 81% of the world market.
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
MS Windows has about 95% of the world market...doesn't mean the technology is better.:)
WeegieMac
Apr 25, 03:17 PM
This story is hilarious, in fact the whole debacle is.
The only reason people can check what their iPhone has logged is because some idiots released open source software to check your iTunes backup.
The insinuation that a Private Investigator could track your movements, as was suggested, is idiotic since a) they'd need access to your computer, b) need have access to your iTunes backup, and c) have the program released installed on your computer to check.
The second notion, that you could be caught cheating by your partner, here's a hint: Don't be a cheating c*nt then. And again, you'd need to have a tech savvy partner.
Massively blown out of proportion, but it's only because it's Apple. Google can drive down your street and film you for their street view maps. Sure, they edit out faces and license plates when the images are put online, but the original unedited images are kept at Google. Nosey b*stards.
The only reason people can check what their iPhone has logged is because some idiots released open source software to check your iTunes backup.
The insinuation that a Private Investigator could track your movements, as was suggested, is idiotic since a) they'd need access to your computer, b) need have access to your iTunes backup, and c) have the program released installed on your computer to check.
The second notion, that you could be caught cheating by your partner, here's a hint: Don't be a cheating c*nt then. And again, you'd need to have a tech savvy partner.
Massively blown out of proportion, but it's only because it's Apple. Google can drive down your street and film you for their street view maps. Sure, they edit out faces and license plates when the images are put online, but the original unedited images are kept at Google. Nosey b*stards.
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
Please tell him.
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:23 PM
Mike,
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
deputy_doofy
Sep 19, 06:12 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
...
So, uh, Merman and Mermaid are out too, huh? ;)
iJawn108
Aug 6, 03:21 PM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/
Shagrat
Jul 15, 02:00 AM
Here (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main) you go.
(re Dragon burn...)
looks like a good app, and the price is good, but it seems as if it is for PPC mac only if their downloadable manual is to be believed. Anybody know if there is a Universal binary in the offing? Need a burn program for my (Non-Mooing!) Macbook!
(re Dragon burn...)
looks like a good app, and the price is good, but it seems as if it is for PPC mac only if their downloadable manual is to be believed. Anybody know if there is a Universal binary in the offing? Need a burn program for my (Non-Mooing!) Macbook!
iJon
Apr 5, 05:08 PM
I have a friend who is attending NAB next week was was told by a friend who has a booth there that Apple has arranged for lots of training sessions, more training sessions then they have usually have had in the past.
Considering Final Cut Studio is a bit outdated I would presume we will see an announcement next week.
Considering Final Cut Studio is a bit outdated I would presume we will see an announcement next week.
dpMacsmith
Jul 14, 03:54 PM
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.