djrod
Apr 30, 01:34 AM
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right. :o
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
tscott467
Oct 6, 08:16 PM
It's a really good Verizon commercial, but going back to the fact that AT&T has a better network than Verizon? No way. If you mean better by having an overall slower 3G network, dropped calls, booted of the network, and having horrible coverage? Yeah then it's better. Apple would do alot better on Verizon's network due to the fact that Verizon's network can handle the MMS, and 100,000 iPhones using the same network in a square mile. AT&T, can't. They were so worried that the MMS would be too much for their network.
I love Apple, but not AT&T.
I love Apple, but not AT&T.
eji
Sep 12, 01:29 AM
I'm waiting to be disappointed. I realized that the anonymously submitted schedule of events could very well turn out to be true, in which case I'm not too miffed that I'll be missing live coverage of the event.
Here're my reservations:
- iTunes should be strictly music. iTube or iFilm or iMovies or iVideo or Apple Movie Store should be a separate application; or else name it iMedia and completely rethink the interface. I find that since the addition of video podcasts and TV shows, iTunes is getting really difficult to keep tidy and organized, even with features like smart playlists and a 20" screen. It looks like a big, sloppy mass of text.
- The price should be $11.99 - 9.99 for new movies, $9.99 - 7.99 for older ones, and an iPod version should be thrown in with the full-quality feature. Any more than that and I'll just buy and rip the DVD or, more likely, just download it elsewhere. This pricing structure is not going to happen, I know, and so I'm already less than thrilled.
- The wireless Mac-to-TV bridge has to be really cool and effortlessly simple (and PC compatible too). This proposed "TubePort" USB dongle sounds like the most likely solution for a cross-platform device, but I'm hoping that the AirPort in all its various incarnations (Express, Extreme) will get a revamp and allow for video streaming somehow.
- A true video iPod needs to come soon. As in, before Christmas. And I really don't think we're going to see it today.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I don't know if the event will live up to the hype. That seems to be Apple's nagging problem lately.
Here're my reservations:
- iTunes should be strictly music. iTube or iFilm or iMovies or iVideo or Apple Movie Store should be a separate application; or else name it iMedia and completely rethink the interface. I find that since the addition of video podcasts and TV shows, iTunes is getting really difficult to keep tidy and organized, even with features like smart playlists and a 20" screen. It looks like a big, sloppy mass of text.
- The price should be $11.99 - 9.99 for new movies, $9.99 - 7.99 for older ones, and an iPod version should be thrown in with the full-quality feature. Any more than that and I'll just buy and rip the DVD or, more likely, just download it elsewhere. This pricing structure is not going to happen, I know, and so I'm already less than thrilled.
- The wireless Mac-to-TV bridge has to be really cool and effortlessly simple (and PC compatible too). This proposed "TubePort" USB dongle sounds like the most likely solution for a cross-platform device, but I'm hoping that the AirPort in all its various incarnations (Express, Extreme) will get a revamp and allow for video streaming somehow.
- A true video iPod needs to come soon. As in, before Christmas. And I really don't think we're going to see it today.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I don't know if the event will live up to the hype. That seems to be Apple's nagging problem lately.
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 12, 12:20 AM
More goodies, more disappointment. Woo-hoo! Bring it on.
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 06:11 PM
Ok fair enough, that was poorly phrased. What I meant was "It seems that some smart phone owners feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Lol, serious? Sorry bro, sounds pretty much the same to me. You're still assuming that because someone compares features with you, or comments on your phone, that they are jealous of you because of your phone.
Lol, serious? Sorry bro, sounds pretty much the same to me. You're still assuming that because someone compares features with you, or comments on your phone, that they are jealous of you because of your phone.
Small White Car
May 3, 09:31 PM
The iPad commercials are so much better than the current iPhone ads it's not even funny.
I'm not saying the iPhone ads should be just like this, but surely they can do better than what they've got if they have the creative folks who worked on this beauty.
I'm not saying the iPhone ads should be just like this, but surely they can do better than what they've got if they have the creative folks who worked on this beauty.
roadbloc
Apr 5, 05:49 PM
Not currently available in the UK Store...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
ellsworth
Mar 24, 06:00 PM
I'm running Mac OS 8.5 on my Performa 6400
Mac OS 9.5 on my G3
Mac OS 10.4.6 on my Intel Duo Macbook Pro
and
Mac OS 10.6.7 on my Quad Macbook Pro
Yes... I'm all over the place.
Happy Birthday!
Mac OS 9.5 on my G3
Mac OS 10.4.6 on my Intel Duo Macbook Pro
and
Mac OS 10.6.7 on my Quad Macbook Pro
Yes... I'm all over the place.
Happy Birthday!
balamw
Oct 5, 08:23 AM
Your average ipod owner could not possibly give a flying %^@$ about how Fairplay's DRM compares to other mp3 players' DRM. Talking about "DRM transparent" like its something that Joe Consumer has any clue about is delusional at best.
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
840quadra
Nov 24, 07:03 AM
Well I went to the Mall of America Apple Store (Bloomington Minnesota) that opened at 6am CST, bought a Macbook, and have since returned home.
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
Fukui
Sep 8, 12:04 PM
Just take a look at the audience that was there, they all where stuned.
I think that was the whole point! ;)
I think that was the whole point! ;)
Cinch
Oct 10, 09:15 PM
I think this a typical engineer/geek/nerd wet dream. I also think the current iPod is too big for the gym (I use the Nano). Watching TV shows or movies on the iPod doesn't appeal to me. Imagine watch a TV show on a screen a little bit bigger than a business card, fabulous, good times!
An iPod that plays Movies and TV shows on a bigger screen like your TV sounds more plausible. But think how complicated this scenario is. Lets keep it simple, lets watch TV shows on our TV beam via cable/satellite. If you have to make a decision to download TV shows (note the one that you like and ignoring the rest) then download it to your TV then simplicity is lost. The product i.e. video iPod is dead on arrival.
Cinch
An iPod that plays Movies and TV shows on a bigger screen like your TV sounds more plausible. But think how complicated this scenario is. Lets keep it simple, lets watch TV shows on our TV beam via cable/satellite. If you have to make a decision to download TV shows (note the one that you like and ignoring the rest) then download it to your TV then simplicity is lost. The product i.e. video iPod is dead on arrival.
Cinch
robbieduncan
Sep 25, 11:24 AM
You are kidding right? There's a whole guide on "next Tuesday" right here on MR.
The whole post is meant to be a joke. All of those things are true. It's poking fun all the "no new MacBooks, this is a joke, you suck" crowd.
The whole post is meant to be a joke. All of those things are true. It's poking fun all the "no new MacBooks, this is a joke, you suck" crowd.
aafuss1
Sep 12, 04:08 AM
A Invader ZIM or TV show themed iPod (imagine having the sigs of your favourite iTMS TV show's star on a iPod).
Will there be a musical guest, like with 2005.
Will there be a musical guest, like with 2005.
bent2013
Apr 15, 11:10 PM
This shell looks like it would be more likely destined for the iPod Touch, it look WAY thinner than the current iPhone!
dejo
Apr 27, 11:17 AM
I still think it would help us if you described, at a high-level, what it is you are trying to accomplish.
From what I can gather you want a countdown timer: a label that shows the seconds remaining, along with two buttons, one to start the countdown and one to cancel it. After the Start button is tapped, the label will start showing the seconds counting down. If the Cancel button is tapped, the countdown stops and is reset, so that if you tap Start again it begins back at 60 seconds. Is that correct?
If so, I think you need to be aware that a countdown-timer and NSTimer are very different things.
From what I can gather you want a countdown timer: a label that shows the seconds remaining, along with two buttons, one to start the countdown and one to cancel it. After the Start button is tapped, the label will start showing the seconds counting down. If the Cancel button is tapped, the countdown stops and is reset, so that if you tap Start again it begins back at 60 seconds. Is that correct?
If so, I think you need to be aware that a countdown-timer and NSTimer are very different things.
AppliedVisual
Oct 17, 02:33 PM
Tape!?! :confused: who on earth uses tape anymore? This is.. 2006. And I was always under the impression that a medium with moving parts would be more prone to failure than one without. Certainly my VHS and cassette library have had their share of tapes being chewed up by the machine or worn out from use.
Tape is still the most reliable, long-term archival media available. Newer tape systems can transfer over 150MB/sec. to and from the tape and store several hundred GB on a single tape. Cost-wise, tape is expensive to buy into, but if you have sufficeint archival needs, it pays for itself over time. Many tape solutions once they reach their ROI point afer a year or two, often are cheaper than HDD storage by half or more. Sounds weird, I know, but that's the way it still is.
Most large data centers covering everything from web storage, insurance databases, financial institutions etc... Have mostly converted over to large-scale redundant servers and storage networks using RAID subsystems. This serves all their immediate storage and backup needs on site and is very reliable if managed properly. But nearly all of them still use an additional tape archival workflow for off-site data storage. There really is no other way right now... Wish there was. Hence the reason tape systems also keep evolving and pretty much match HDD capacity with tape capacity in most cases and transfer rates continue to improve. Comparing tape archival systems to VHS or miniDV tape is not a good comparison, data tapes (or at least the good ones) are very robust and actually very hard to damage. Short of placing them in a magnetic field for a period of time, they're mostly indestructable. They do have moving parts, but hardly any compared to a hard drive.
Using hard drives as an archival solution is a bad idea... Hard drives are not designed for this and can corrupt data over time. Not to mention, the platter system and motors are not designed to sit stationary for years at a time for long-term storage. Optical media isn't too bad, but most photo-sensitive dyes and films used in optical media will decay over time. CD-R media was originally claimed to have a lifespan of 30 to 100 years. Now that it's been around for 30+ years, we're finding out that claim was somewhat exaggerated. Recordable DVD media and HD-DVD and BD are no different, just higher data density on the discs. And also not anywhere near practical for large-scale solutions. Just how do you archive and manage 300 petabytes per year to DVD-R???
For small business type users and home users though, DVD-R media in addition to a good redundant RAID setup probably makes the most sense. Unless they're pushing lots of data doing HD video editing or something like that. In which case, it may still make sense to give tape a consideration as the long-term archive solution. Prosumer level tape archive systems exist and are not that expensive and much more reliable than shelved hard drives and much easier to manage than optical media. The VXA2 format can afford someone an external Firewire tape system w/2 tapes for < $1K. Tapes hold up to 160GB each and factoring in the cost of the drive plus enough tapes to back up about 3 terrabytes of data, the cost becomes cheaper than individual hard drives. So a few terrabytes down the road and you could be wishing you had considered tape if you're still using DVD-R. OTOH, DVD-R is just fine and dandy if a terrabyte or two is all you need. Because you can fit a lot of discs in a shoebox and sharpie pen to label them is pretty cheap too.
External drives are *not* long term archiving solutions. They are useful for storing vast amounts of data that presumably you want to actually access and use (and possibly modify) on a regular basis; also, they are good for the kind of incremental backups you refer to, Time Machine, Retrospect, other 3rd party backup tools can be used for this. But if you have important files you know aren't going to change, while having them on HDD is useful for instant access, that's not where they should be permanently archived -- they should be burned to a permanent medium, preferably more than one copy, and stored in a safe place (or places). If your drive fails and you still need the data to be on that drive, you can then restore from the permanent medium.
Um... I guess I got carried away and didn't mean to elaborate on what you already said. But, er... um.. Yep, I agree.
Tape is still the most reliable, long-term archival media available. Newer tape systems can transfer over 150MB/sec. to and from the tape and store several hundred GB on a single tape. Cost-wise, tape is expensive to buy into, but if you have sufficeint archival needs, it pays for itself over time. Many tape solutions once they reach their ROI point afer a year or two, often are cheaper than HDD storage by half or more. Sounds weird, I know, but that's the way it still is.
Most large data centers covering everything from web storage, insurance databases, financial institutions etc... Have mostly converted over to large-scale redundant servers and storage networks using RAID subsystems. This serves all their immediate storage and backup needs on site and is very reliable if managed properly. But nearly all of them still use an additional tape archival workflow for off-site data storage. There really is no other way right now... Wish there was. Hence the reason tape systems also keep evolving and pretty much match HDD capacity with tape capacity in most cases and transfer rates continue to improve. Comparing tape archival systems to VHS or miniDV tape is not a good comparison, data tapes (or at least the good ones) are very robust and actually very hard to damage. Short of placing them in a magnetic field for a period of time, they're mostly indestructable. They do have moving parts, but hardly any compared to a hard drive.
Using hard drives as an archival solution is a bad idea... Hard drives are not designed for this and can corrupt data over time. Not to mention, the platter system and motors are not designed to sit stationary for years at a time for long-term storage. Optical media isn't too bad, but most photo-sensitive dyes and films used in optical media will decay over time. CD-R media was originally claimed to have a lifespan of 30 to 100 years. Now that it's been around for 30+ years, we're finding out that claim was somewhat exaggerated. Recordable DVD media and HD-DVD and BD are no different, just higher data density on the discs. And also not anywhere near practical for large-scale solutions. Just how do you archive and manage 300 petabytes per year to DVD-R???
For small business type users and home users though, DVD-R media in addition to a good redundant RAID setup probably makes the most sense. Unless they're pushing lots of data doing HD video editing or something like that. In which case, it may still make sense to give tape a consideration as the long-term archive solution. Prosumer level tape archive systems exist and are not that expensive and much more reliable than shelved hard drives and much easier to manage than optical media. The VXA2 format can afford someone an external Firewire tape system w/2 tapes for < $1K. Tapes hold up to 160GB each and factoring in the cost of the drive plus enough tapes to back up about 3 terrabytes of data, the cost becomes cheaper than individual hard drives. So a few terrabytes down the road and you could be wishing you had considered tape if you're still using DVD-R. OTOH, DVD-R is just fine and dandy if a terrabyte or two is all you need. Because you can fit a lot of discs in a shoebox and sharpie pen to label them is pretty cheap too.
External drives are *not* long term archiving solutions. They are useful for storing vast amounts of data that presumably you want to actually access and use (and possibly modify) on a regular basis; also, they are good for the kind of incremental backups you refer to, Time Machine, Retrospect, other 3rd party backup tools can be used for this. But if you have important files you know aren't going to change, while having them on HDD is useful for instant access, that's not where they should be permanently archived -- they should be burned to a permanent medium, preferably more than one copy, and stored in a safe place (or places). If your drive fails and you still need the data to be on that drive, you can then restore from the permanent medium.
Um... I guess I got carried away and didn't mean to elaborate on what you already said. But, er... um.. Yep, I agree.
DoFoT9
Jul 22, 04:54 AM
That is a very poor speed, at least I'm getting close to 10 mb/s but paying for 30 I think... $76 a month. These monopolies we have in the US are a drag, they can do whatever they want and the gov does nothing about it. Mine is adequate for all the folding at least.
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
i pay $130aus a month ($~110 US) for 50GB of downloads! (adsl2+). at least i hit the speeds.
are you on cable lord?
Broojo02
May 2, 09:23 AM
Kinda glad about this, the new sliders did look awesome and very iOSy but the slight delay in seeing a switch between two different states with the animation, especially between two areas far away could be a bit annoying and time consuming. We are only talking like 1/2 a second max probably but that is still something compared to the instant response of having a simple button.
Benjy91
Apr 7, 09:59 AM
Is Windows 8 then Windows 7.0, like Windows Seven is actually Windows 6.1?
Thats just the NT version. Windows 8 will be 6.2
7 was 6.1,
Vista was 6.0
XP was 5.0
Technically Windows 7 is the 10th version of Windows, if you don't count Windows Server.
Windows 7 is the 7th version if you count from Windows 95.
Thats just the NT version. Windows 8 will be 6.2
7 was 6.1,
Vista was 6.0
XP was 5.0
Technically Windows 7 is the 10th version of Windows, if you don't count Windows Server.
Windows 7 is the 7th version if you count from Windows 95.
twoodcc
Aug 17, 06:55 PM
Hmm, I have a machine with 3 cards and one of them runs at 90c while the others run at 70+. the other machine with 3 cards all run at 70c
at least that is runable. my system will crash once the one card gets to 104-105C
That is weird :confused:
yeah it is. i've closed the case, but it's still laying down
at least that is runable. my system will crash once the one card gets to 104-105C
That is weird :confused:
yeah it is. i've closed the case, but it's still laying down
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 04:54 PM
Sounds like the Record companies are being their typical stupid selves. Only reason Apple is really able to get away with it is because they are Apple. It is not the closed system part but because they are Apple. I bet if the record company could they would say F you to Apple and pull out. I also would not be surpised if they regreat now making a deal with them when iTunes first launched.
Amazon on it cloud stuff just said F-You to the record company and Amazon has enough sells like Apple iTMS that they can force the music company to bend over and take it.
This stinks over all. It is not closed or open argument. This is a record company being record companies.
Amazon on it cloud stuff just said F-You to the record company and Amazon has enough sells like Apple iTMS that they can force the music company to bend over and take it.
This stinks over all. It is not closed or open argument. This is a record company being record companies.
AP_piano295
May 4, 03:19 PM
1. What business is it if a pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home? A child is more likely to get hit by a car, should the doctor be asking if their home is situated on a street? This reeks of a doctor playing politics.
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
