Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:19 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:34 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
z4n3
Apr 13, 08:44 AM
Seriously - most you guys could walk into the Gates of Heaven, look at Jesus, and say "Is this all? This sucks."
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
200+ comments on this thread, and only one I can fully agree with :confused:
p.s. YES I am a Pro, YES I get paid to edit, and a Apple PRO user before most people here were even born! :p
HasanDaddy I tip my hat to you Sir. (if I had one anyway)
emotion
Sep 20, 10:30 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300.
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
UnixMac
Oct 11, 09:04 AM
How does it run on an UltraSparc III 900?
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
How does it run on an Alpha?
Lets get an assortment of score, there could be a code bug for the G4, I am not an expert, but 10-20 times slower sounds like science fiction.
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:17 PM
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
lipinski77
Sep 20, 01:36 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
whfsdude
Mar 20, 11:41 AM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.
Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.
Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.
Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust. :(
You've been able to strip the DRM out of these for ages (without the burn/rip cycle). All of these songs exist on the various P2P networks. People are still buying from the store.
If you build your business model on the assumption that everybody is a thief, you just become as hated as the RIAA.
Exactly! I know when I used to steal music it wasn't because I wouldn't buy it, it was because it was far easier to leave the computer on downloading some songs that I would have to go to two or three places to find.
Now that their is iTMS it's easier to buy and I can find most of the music that I want that wouldn't even be in stores.
Yes, some people will always steal but most of the consumers won't steal if they find a service they like. With iTMS service there is no reason to steal. Yes I do strip the DRM from my files. Why? Because I don't like having DRM on my files, it's just that simple. I am not using 5 computers, using 3. I use the non-DRMed files on my iBook and iPod. No reason to de-DRM except for the fact it makes me feel like I don't have control over the music.
Bottom line is people will support your service or products if they enjoy and use them. So as a company you have to trust your consumers and consumers must trust a company. DRM = breaking trust. :(
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
ziggyonice
Apr 20, 05:25 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
.jpg "Hd Nature Wallpaper 1080p.")
matticus008
Mar 19, 01:29 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
Yes. By signing up for an account to use the iTunes Music Store, you are bound to their terms of service. Those terms only appear in the official iTunes client because that's the only source for the music. Just because those terms don't pop up on the screen if you use this PyMusique thing doesn't mean you aren't responsible for knowing. For example, if you do not receive a bill in the mail for your credit card, you are still responsible for making the payment and paying any late fees--it is your responsibility as the borrower to make the appropriate payment on time. By using the service, you are implicitly agreeing to the terms of service and use, including Apple's rights to prosecute (should they choose to) for your violation of those terms (i.e. using a non-approved client application). This is enforceable; whether Apple chooses to do anything about it remains unclear.
Also enforceable is the DMCA violation (and yes, it is a violation, because you are BYPASSING technology designed to secure DRM). Even though you paid for the songs, you also paid for the license for that song (which includes DRM), and you are breaking encryption by bypassing it. Walking through a hole in a fence is still trespassing, whether you made the hole or not. Again, from a legal perspective, this is a punishable violation.
I'm not saying that I like having my digital music locked down more vigorously than a CD I buy. But there are logical reasons for doing so. Namely, that the digital version, if un-DRMed, can be copied and transmitted with no special software or effort. If I want to share a CD, I have to burn a copy (requiring hardware and software) or extract the audio digitally and transmit it. Digital music does all that for you, and Apple's DRM gives you appropriate fair use rights. The DRM is designed to prevent casual copying that results in lower license sales.
You don't own the music you've bought, and you don't have any legal right to redistribute it because your license does not allow it. Should you be able to use it on any type of device you choose? Yes. Does DRM prevent that from happening? Often, also yes. Can you choose a different format that works with all devices (standard MP3 imported from a CD)? Yeah, but not on purchased iTunes music. Until DRM and file format technology becomes standardized, you have to deal with "early adopter syndrome" in a volatile market, which can result in purchases not being universally compatible (betamax/VHS/laser disc/DVD anyone?). Make a choice that works for you.
By purchasing AAC with Apple's DRM, you are choosing a file format with known and public limitations that will only work with a specific combination of hardware and software. You chose the delivery platform; you can't buy Windows software and then complain that it doesn't work on your Mac without buying it again. That's the way business works. Of course it would be fantastic if buying a license of Office for my PC gave me a corresponding license for all the other computer platforms I use, but that's not the case. Even say, Dreamweaver, which gives you Mac and PC installers, is only licensed to be used on one of the computers. I can install it on both, but that doesn't make it right or legal, even if I think that Macromedia is horrible (which I do).
In conclusion, breaking or bypassing DRM, while understandable on a basic level for getting compatibility with everything, is against the law. Using tools to do this which violate the iTMS terms of service is also a legal violation. The best way out of this situation is to support a universal standard that ensures compatibility with all devices and file formats. DRM isn't going away, and it shouldn't. But it should also not work against honest customers who just want iTunes songs to play on their Rio. Long post, my apologies.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
chown33
Apr 10, 04:29 PM
-No Directory path... Well there is. inside of finder you can turn on 2 options. One to show the folder structure at the bottom of the finder window (like a status bar) and navigate up/down a folder tree. open up finder, go to View> select show PAth bar.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
4. Cmd-click on the title in the title-bar. A drop-down appears showing the entire path to the folder. You can then select any item in the drop-down and that folder will show. Or click anywhere else and the drop-down disappears.
As of 10.5 Leopard a right-click (secondary click) does the same thing. Cmd-click has existed since 10.0.
Oh, and it works in many applications, too. Cmd-click or right-click the title in the title-bar, and the path drop-down appears. Choose a folder and it opens in Finder.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
4. Cmd-click on the title in the title-bar. A drop-down appears showing the entire path to the folder. You can then select any item in the drop-down and that folder will show. Or click anywhere else and the drop-down disappears.
As of 10.5 Leopard a right-click (secondary click) does the same thing. Cmd-click has existed since 10.0.
Oh, and it works in many applications, too. Cmd-click or right-click the title in the title-bar, and the path drop-down appears. Choose a folder and it opens in Finder.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:37 AM
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:32 PM
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
deconai
Aug 29, 04:04 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 08:52 PM
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiFi etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
JFreak
Jul 13, 02:11 AM
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
Agreed, Color and Motion probably need to remain separate apps, although Apple may later market them as part of a suite. I don't think today's announcement has any bearing on the status of Color and Motion.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
Agreed, Color and Motion probably need to remain separate apps, although Apple may later market them as part of a suite. I don't think today's announcement has any bearing on the status of Color and Motion.
Liquorpuki
Oct 7, 06:44 PM
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
You were arguing in your little list that having to jailbreak their iphone is gonna make users want to migrate to Android phones. Jailbreaking is basically hacking and phones are hacked because functionality is crippled. I'm pointing out that Android phones can have the same problem, especially if they come out on carriers such as Verizon, which goes further and also cripples hw features iPhone users take for granted.
The iPhone platform has some significant variations. Location precision (lack of GPS), microphone or speaker existence on the touch, existence of MMS, CPU speed between models, amount of RAM (a potentially big problem for game makers).
The context isn't how many variables exist but how many variables devs have to deal with. iPhone app developers have to deal with much less than developers on decentralized hardware platforms. WM developers have several different OEM's to deal with as well as all their models and generations thereof. If you can't see how the complexity translates into a harder development process, I don't know what to tell you.
Really. Do you have an example of an app bricking a WM phone
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
Verizon doesn't cripple their smartphones. Even their GPS is unlocked now
the folks at the Verizon forums disagree with you
So you admit that it's hobbled in its stock form? ATT / Verizon / Sprint don't block any apps you want to use on their smartphones. Or themes. Or anyt
First most phones I've seen are hobbled in its stock form, not just the iPhone. But personally I think the quality of the iPhone and all the other things the design engineers got right outweighs the fact I have to jailbreak it to put a 5x5 matrix of icons on my screen out the box.
I hate AT&T service here in LA and I hate the fact I can't tether but I put up with it because it's such a good phone. I don't care that Android or Sprint doesn't screen apps because to take advantage of that, at this point in time I'd have to downgrade to a shttier phone and go to an app store that has less than 25% of the apps Apple does, and ironically, because they don't screen, more of them suck
The iPhone's Bluetooth was crippled to begin with... and still is. The original iPhone will always lack GPS
Crippled means the hw is functional but was disabled by the carrier or MFGer. An iPhone that wasn't designed with a GPS chip is not crippled. An iPhone having a fullly functional GPS chip that won't work without purchasing Telenav is crippled.
No comments:
Post a Comment