rezenclowd3
Jan 6, 12:13 AM
I also agree with the generally expensive cost of owning a used BMW.
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
I searched long and hard for my E30, and with over $14k poured into it by the last 3 owners as of last year when the work was done, I picked it up at the right time. However mine was a special case due to the engine+tranny swap.
I wouldn't trust an E36 (91-99) much under $10k. The e30 is cheap to maintain as well as easy to work on, but due to age, if completely stock, be prepared to start pouring money into it to make it a dd again.
Audi, I wouldn't touch used, even though they are damn cool cars, same with Mercs.
Much is luck finding a good DD BMW as well as proper knowledge and inspections.
Good luck finding one that you are happy with. If you get a bad feeling, or feel that the seller is less than 110% honest, just run.
On a side note, the previous owner of my E30 that I posted on page 1 just called and offered to buy it back, and offered to do a trade + cash for his much newer e9033i (if I understood him correctly). I need to take the e30 out AutoXing first to decide...still, will give him first dibs once I decide to depart with this classic car. I think I would have to get rid of it for an E30 M3 though ;-)
oracle_ab
Apr 27, 10:24 AM
We are saying the same thing - the general population, it doesn't matter if they refer to all markets as app stores, much like Windex, Xerox and Google have become generic terms.
Bingo! :)
Bingo! :)
Manic Mouse
Aug 26, 05:57 AM
Oh I can be sure that a Conroe placed in an iMac will run into the volume constraints and effective heat dissipation of the heat sink when compared to a full blown BTX tower.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
The original G5 and the Rev. B (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/IMacG5guts.png) stuck with the wonderful heat channel. The 17" models ran a lot hotter then the 20" due to the internal design and volume.
The Rev. C (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/imac_isight_internals/imac_g5_isight_inside.html) and Intel use similar internal layouts with the CPU and power supply toward the top of the machine.
Here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inju/88928219/) is a good comparison.
Watch the WWDC keynote and note that the xserves now use Woodcrest which has a higher TDP than Conroe (95W compared to 65W). Also note what they say about Woodcrest having a better thermal environment that the G5's they were using before which were the same G5's (non-dual core) that the iMac used I believe. Conroe has better thermal characteristics than G5's, the Mac Pro and xserve prove that.
iMac will get Conroe. 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz. Conroe is the best value for performance processor that Intel are offering, so they need to use it SOMEWHERE in their lineup.
Maimon Mons
Nov 28, 12:02 PM
...here is a link (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11631/) to the CNN review of the zune. I wouldn't be surprised if they were payed by Apple given how it ends.
For what it's worth, the first zune on the amazon.com list shows up at #21 at the moment. Out of the top 10, 8 are ipods and the other 2 are sandisk models. Zune is beaten out by the 80 GB ipod in addition to the cheaper models.
For what it's worth, the first zune on the amazon.com list shows up at #21 at the moment. Out of the top 10, 8 are ipods and the other 2 are sandisk models. Zune is beaten out by the 80 GB ipod in addition to the cheaper models.
zorinlynx
Mar 24, 02:29 PM
Hmm, maybe we are thinking of two different things. How is this going to maintain a protected path? How would Apple keep us from grabbing the stream as it is being sent to the GPU (to be shown on the screen)? That is the part I am thinking of, that is what HDCP/DPCP is supposed to prevent. If we are sending data down the PCIe side then how is it being protected from snooping?
I've always found this obsession the industry has with "protected path" incredibly hilarious, because NO ONE in the piracy scene actually rips media from the video driver stream in any way, shape or form.
Ripping is typically done directly from the media; the actual h.264 or MPEG video is decrypted from the disc and saved without even "playing" it the traditional way. It's always been that way since the days of DVDs; no serious pirate back then ripped from component or S-video jacks either.
Why the media industry is so incredibly obsessed with protecting a path nobody actually rips from is beyond my understanding. It's like stationing an armed guard at your back door when all the robberies have happened through the front. In fact, I've never seen consumer equipment that can "record" a DVI stream.
I've always found this obsession the industry has with "protected path" incredibly hilarious, because NO ONE in the piracy scene actually rips media from the video driver stream in any way, shape or form.
Ripping is typically done directly from the media; the actual h.264 or MPEG video is decrypted from the disc and saved without even "playing" it the traditional way. It's always been that way since the days of DVDs; no serious pirate back then ripped from component or S-video jacks either.
Why the media industry is so incredibly obsessed with protecting a path nobody actually rips from is beyond my understanding. It's like stationing an armed guard at your back door when all the robberies have happened through the front. In fact, I've never seen consumer equipment that can "record" a DVI stream.
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 04:07 PM
The repression in Libya is on a different scale entirely to those other countries. None of those others is using tanks and aircraft to attack their dissidents.
Indeed, puzzling: I was putting it down to callowness, too.
I now believe it to be regression.
If depleted uranium was used in the warhead, the object (tank?) could have exploded from the inside out. That's gotta hurt, but at least it's quick. :rolleyes:
Oh, I chose to not have children, so I have no dog in this fight.
Indeed, puzzling: I was putting it down to callowness, too.
I now believe it to be regression.
If depleted uranium was used in the warhead, the object (tank?) could have exploded from the inside out. That's gotta hurt, but at least it's quick. :rolleyes:
Oh, I chose to not have children, so I have no dog in this fight.
Morod
Apr 21, 11:34 AM
It doesn't take long for crap politics to enter a thread....
eNcrypTioN
Mar 22, 06:52 PM
I knew they wouldn't get rid of the classic. Something about just being able to put my entire music collection on one device keeps me coming back for more. The iPod touch doesn't come close to having as much storage space of the classic which is why I'll continue to keep purchasing iPod classics. And also, if I wanted a device like the iPod touch I would just buy the iPhone instead.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
RBD2
Sep 14, 10:44 AM
http://tinyurl.com/yed7h3p
Consultant
Mar 25, 03:59 PM
Great news. And so thin!
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
Exactly.
iPad 1 does not support HDMI out, so I'm assuming no, it doesn't work.
Exactly.
Chundles
Jul 18, 06:19 AM
Can someone do the math? What would the file size be for 2 hour movie at present? What about if it were compressed into a zip or tz file? What would it be if the quality were improved? How long would it take to download these files with dialup, on dsl, on cable. I would think that most people would not be downloading using their offices T1 connection ;)
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
OK, I'm just going to do the maths...
Let's see, divide by 1024.....carry the one....add 6...average speed of an unladen swallow...take the inverse and...
The answer is: Very BIG!!
How long would you wait or tie up your computer's internet connection to download an old movie from Disney?
OK, I'm just going to do the maths...
Let's see, divide by 1024.....carry the one....add 6...average speed of an unladen swallow...take the inverse and...
The answer is: Very BIG!!
Rocketman
Mar 24, 02:07 PM
Wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a Mac Pro with 3 nCore chips, 3 GPU's, 3 SSD's, and an internal HD RAID?
Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just have a chip and memory combo unit. :D
Rocketman
Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just have a chip and memory combo unit. :D
Rocketman
Spyriadon
Apr 19, 12:10 PM
Wow....a MAC rumor.
My money is sat here waiting to be spent.
Next week looks good to me =].
My money is sat here waiting to be spent.
Next week looks good to me =].
abhimat.gautam
Mar 31, 03:00 AM
Apple has never mentioned before the new "Scene Kit":
Introduced in Mac OS X v10.7, the Scene Kit framework enables your application to import, manipulate, and render three-dimensional assets. It supports 3D assets imported via COLLADA, an XML-based schema that facilitates the transport of 3D assets between applications. Architecturally, a scene is composed of the 3D entities of cameras, lights, and meshes. Scene Kit lets you access attributes of scene objects�for example, geometry, bounding volume, and material�and is consistent with the APIs of other graphical frameworks, such as Core Animation and Image Kit.
Scene Kit is intended for developers who quickly need to integrate 3D rendering into their applications. It doesn�t require that you have advanced graphical programming skills.
Nice, didn�t know about that.
Introduced in Mac OS X v10.7, the Scene Kit framework enables your application to import, manipulate, and render three-dimensional assets. It supports 3D assets imported via COLLADA, an XML-based schema that facilitates the transport of 3D assets between applications. Architecturally, a scene is composed of the 3D entities of cameras, lights, and meshes. Scene Kit lets you access attributes of scene objects�for example, geometry, bounding volume, and material�and is consistent with the APIs of other graphical frameworks, such as Core Animation and Image Kit.
Scene Kit is intended for developers who quickly need to integrate 3D rendering into their applications. It doesn�t require that you have advanced graphical programming skills.
Nice, didn�t know about that.
hansolo669
Feb 24, 09:53 AM
how do you drive a monitor like that? I tought that both HDMI and DVI has respectivetly 1920*1080 and 1920*1200 as max res. ! am I wrong?
dvi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface#Digital)
hdmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4)
dvi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface#Digital)
hdmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4)
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:23 PM
iMac is already wildly popular. they have no reason for aggressive pricing.
You must have missed my post on doing the price comparison a la the Mac Pro. I feel they should have to prove the "more expensive" myth wrong CLEAR across the board.
You must have missed my post on doing the price comparison a la the Mac Pro. I feel they should have to prove the "more expensive" myth wrong CLEAR across the board.
PBF
Apr 3, 06:20 PM
^ I don't about you, guys, but is there a way to make the address bar auto-hide when in FS mode? Logically, you don't wanna see anything but page content when in FS mode, no?
GSPice
Apr 19, 11:15 AM
MacRumors is quoting CNET? :(
eenu
Aug 16, 11:13 AM
Both companies have cult-like followings (Apple and Stern, and let's face it, Stern is Sirius)
Allow Sirius subscribers to get satellite radio on their ipods, maybe even download a limited portion to the HD.
But the killer feature is the ability to BOOKMARK a song you like and buy it from iTunes later or over the air for those who want wireless.
I already have a lifetime Sirius subscription as well as numerous Apple products including an ipod.
PLEASE make it happen and don't let the Zune get this feature first.
As far as i can see Sirius is really an american service? Lets not forget Apple needs to make product releases applicable for the world outside america....one does exist :p
Allow Sirius subscribers to get satellite radio on their ipods, maybe even download a limited portion to the HD.
But the killer feature is the ability to BOOKMARK a song you like and buy it from iTunes later or over the air for those who want wireless.
I already have a lifetime Sirius subscription as well as numerous Apple products including an ipod.
PLEASE make it happen and don't let the Zune get this feature first.
As far as i can see Sirius is really an american service? Lets not forget Apple needs to make product releases applicable for the world outside america....one does exist :p
The Sheck
Sep 18, 01:27 AM
So, the ipod touch 4G is my first iOS device, and I had a bunch of problems putting on the screen protector when I bought the Dermashot. So much in fact, that I ruined the protector. Not seeing any others for sale on the site, I emailed their customer service to inquire when they'd be on sale. They said "soon," but in the meantime they sent me two FREE ones! Love their customer support and the case looks great on mine. :D
cleanup
Nov 25, 11:30 PM
My new ride:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00453/pg-4-popemobile-1-p_453109s.jpg
Better be safe than sorry, right Benguitar? :)
Although, in all honesty, my last purchase:
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37416_04_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/34838_01_d.jpg
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37058_01_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/42900_04_d.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00453/pg-4-popemobile-1-p_453109s.jpg
Better be safe than sorry, right Benguitar? :)
Although, in all honesty, my last purchase:
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37416_04_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/34838_01_d.jpg
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37058_01_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/42900_04_d.jpg
mealex
Nov 29, 11:24 PM
I think iTV will have the feature of showing your Keynote presentations right right there, how easy and cool would that be. Never have to sit at a Mac again to show that presentation, just a few click by with the Apple remote. By the way I am surprised I never heard of this on the internet, it just seems logical to me to be added as a feature.
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
Anybody got a clue why would iTV include a HD?
sord
Aug 6, 11:55 PM
Ok - I've been into Macs for a couple years now, so I don't have the history with the company of many of you do.
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
Last WWDC Stevie said that Leopard would be announced at this WWDC - or at least demonstrated. My guess - late this year or early next it will be in stores.
Oh - and Powerbook G5s (dual core) tomorrow!!
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
Last WWDC Stevie said that Leopard would be announced at this WWDC - or at least demonstrated. My guess - late this year or early next it will be in stores.
Oh - and Powerbook G5s (dual core) tomorrow!!