Synchromesh
Apr 10, 02:21 PM
My first car years ago was an automatic (had no choice). Since then all were manual and that's the only way to go imho. I do not and will not buy automatic car for a long time because I despise them. Nothing more pathetic than a sports car with an automatic. Honestly, any man not driving a family car/taxi/limo/truck that drives an automatic is not very manly in my eyes.
I remember going to Dominican Republic a few years back. We couldn't take a Jeep tour because it required 2 drivers the could handle a manual and I was the only one who could drive it out of 6 people (3 guys and 3 girls). Very sad.
I remember going to Dominican Republic a few years back. We couldn't take a Jeep tour because it required 2 drivers the could handle a manual and I was the only one who could drive it out of 6 people (3 guys and 3 girls). Very sad.
Ugg
Mar 24, 02:54 PM
Other Animal species have bisexual relationships so it must be natural.
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Human cannibalism is well known. Lots of primitive tribes throughout history have engaged in it and it exists to this day in small circles of even "Christian" peoples. Sacrificing a son's foreskin for one's god is another practice that exists today in many human cultures. There's nothing enlightened about that, is there?
Other Animal species also are involved in cannibalism and random out breaks against their own kind, so in our species we shouldn't prohibit murder either, its natural.
Human cannibalism is well known. Lots of primitive tribes throughout history have engaged in it and it exists to this day in small circles of even "Christian" peoples. Sacrificing a son's foreskin for one's god is another practice that exists today in many human cultures. There's nothing enlightened about that, is there?
roland.g
Sep 1, 12:48 PM
17" iMac - EDU only or $1099
20" iMac - 2.16 $1,499
23" iMac - 2.33 $1,799 or $1,899 no way they put a $1,999 or higher price tag on an iMac, not even if they call it iMac Pro
20" iMac - 2.16 $1,499
23" iMac - 2.33 $1,799 or $1,899 no way they put a $1,999 or higher price tag on an iMac, not even if they call it iMac Pro
wolfboy
Oct 1, 12:17 AM
I saw a youtube video of someone having that same problem. His tip was to use a very small pinch of baby powder and put it on your finger. Then rub it thoroughly all over the back of the iPod. Once you put on the case the watermarks should disappear.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 7, 12:41 PM
As with most things :D I do have an opinion on that. I am very interested in diesel, but I am in the minority as far as that is concerned. When I mention the benefits of diesel to my friends, most of them say something like "Really, you're kidding, if they are superior in areas such as mileage then why doesn't the car companies make and sell them?" I believe the answer is because of the ridiculous emissions standards placed on the manufacturers by agencies such as the EPA. I believe that our government knows the benefits of diesel technology, but that too many powerful people are bought and paid for by giant corporations. You can call me a tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorist is you want to, but I really do think that is why many good things are being suppressed here.
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
I agree. Case in point; I believe one of the Aptera prototypes was rear drive and used batteries in conjunction with a diesel generator. At full charge the car would run off batteries and as they depleted the generator would contribute more and more electricity. Aptera's fuel efficiency figures were impressive, leaving EVER?THING currently offered in the dust. Sorry I can't quote data but if you look at archived site pages you can probably still find it; I did while back.
As fate would have it the diesel generator Aptera prototype has yet to make it into production and now they seem to offer only a total-loss battery car. I don't recall the range being very impressive which relegates it as an urban novelty and not in contention for serious real-world commuting.
:(
jbelkin
Nov 28, 01:32 PM
The problem with the Amazon chart is you can guess a Thursday at 5 PM ranking is better than a Sunday at 4 AM ranking but it's hard to tell exactly if one means sales of 1,000 and one means sales of 18 - last time I checked, the Zune was 48 with a couple ipod cases selling better but of course, it's better to crowd the top 10.
Yea, MS still thinks it's 1992. Notice how they trumped the Zune would be in 30,000 stores versus 10,000 for the ipod? Does anyoen want to point out the internet to MS? That no matter what town I live in, in 1992 I might've had 1 choice in buying consumer electronics but now I can be in Middle Nowhere, North Dakota and literally have 100,000 stores + eBay at my fingertips? And where Ms counts on - no choice but ours to buy - the default choice - iPods on the other hand are not at Walgreens or 7-11 but people still find them ... amazing what world class hardware, software and online store will do for you.
Ms doesn't understand why when consumers have a real choice, they seldom choose MS products (webtv, talking barney's, watch OS or Melinda Gates' last MS project - the answer to OS7, MS Bob).
Looks like Steve ballmer's stock holdings are going to need some more propping up.
Yea, MS still thinks it's 1992. Notice how they trumped the Zune would be in 30,000 stores versus 10,000 for the ipod? Does anyoen want to point out the internet to MS? That no matter what town I live in, in 1992 I might've had 1 choice in buying consumer electronics but now I can be in Middle Nowhere, North Dakota and literally have 100,000 stores + eBay at my fingertips? And where Ms counts on - no choice but ours to buy - the default choice - iPods on the other hand are not at Walgreens or 7-11 but people still find them ... amazing what world class hardware, software and online store will do for you.
Ms doesn't understand why when consumers have a real choice, they seldom choose MS products (webtv, talking barney's, watch OS or Melinda Gates' last MS project - the answer to OS7, MS Bob).
Looks like Steve ballmer's stock holdings are going to need some more propping up.
Doctor Q
Jul 18, 01:58 AM
I wouldn't rule out downloading a movie, even for limited use, but the price would have to make it worthwhile. It'll have to compete with Netflix, my local video rental store, cable TV, and going to the movie theater. A tough market but a good population of potential customers.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 7, 05:08 AM
I dont follow cricket but I'll kick your ass at football! :D
Last time we played we beat you 3-0 in England im pretty sure.
We should have won the bloody world cup.
We dominated against Italy until Grosso dived and got the most dodgy penalty in history, then we would have smashed ukraine in the quarters, then we would have been in the semi's against Germany, then anythign could have happened. Lets just say FIFA didnt want us to win, because its the one sport we 'aren't meant to dominate'. So the ref played it that way.
People should have learned not to count out an Aussie. Our spirit means we have the best in every field from sport to soldiers.
We would kick ur ass
Last time we played we beat you 3-0 in England im pretty sure.
We should have won the bloody world cup.
We dominated against Italy until Grosso dived and got the most dodgy penalty in history, then we would have smashed ukraine in the quarters, then we would have been in the semi's against Germany, then anythign could have happened. Lets just say FIFA didnt want us to win, because its the one sport we 'aren't meant to dominate'. So the ref played it that way.
People should have learned not to count out an Aussie. Our spirit means we have the best in every field from sport to soldiers.
We would kick ur ass
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 05:00 PM
No. Homeopathy does not require people to forgo medicine that actually works.
Yes, but sometimes they put undue trust in it, to the exclusion of traditional medicine.
Yes, but sometimes they put undue trust in it, to the exclusion of traditional medicine.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:14 PM
Ok, so the text update says the screenshot is 'sexy.'
Well, I'm sold!
Well, I'm sold!
faroZ06
Apr 3, 01:25 AM
Has piano music like the oooold Mac ads. I guess they're addressing the complaints about how the Xoom (which is a piece of junk) has more RAM. Who cares? :cool:
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
BabyFaceMagee
Jan 13, 01:34 PM
Apple dosent registor domain names like that...
Apple doesn't purchase individual sites for its products. They put everything under the www.apple.com site. go try looking for www.macbook.com or www.powerbook.com and you'll see they just go to individual user's sites. So no MacbookAir.com site registered to Apple doesn't mean anything.
Apple doesn't purchase individual sites for its products. They put everything under the www.apple.com site. go try looking for www.macbook.com or www.powerbook.com and you'll see they just go to individual user's sites. So no MacbookAir.com site registered to Apple doesn't mean anything.
robbieduncan
Apr 20, 10:57 AM
To me, driving is a necessary evil; if I'm at point A and I need to get to point B, and nobody else is going my way, then I'll drive; otherwise, I won't. I positively hate it, and I gain no joy whatsoever from it.
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
That's because you only have automatics to drive :p
designed
Mar 23, 06:00 PM
I'm right at 28 minutes with a MacPro 2.66 octo but I'm not currently running bigadv units because I keep having to shut down to swap hard drives, bigadv units don't restart once you have stopped them. One of these days I'll get some time to consolidate all of my files... then I won't have to shut down so frequently:p
Haha. I wanted the 2.66 octo but couldn't justify the price jump (and still somehow managed to justify the quad-to-octo jump, but that's another story). Of course my times tend to deviate, during the days it's just under 33 minutes but now and then a bit of Aperture work comes in and needs CPU attention.
I haven't noticed that bigadv units do not restart. Mine seem to restart just fine the few times I've shut FahCore down, continuing from the same frame. Does it affect the points awarded or so? Good thing I can usually bunch in the updates, last time it was a few software updates and a third HDD :rolleyes:
Haha. I wanted the 2.66 octo but couldn't justify the price jump (and still somehow managed to justify the quad-to-octo jump, but that's another story). Of course my times tend to deviate, during the days it's just under 33 minutes but now and then a bit of Aperture work comes in and needs CPU attention.
I haven't noticed that bigadv units do not restart. Mine seem to restart just fine the few times I've shut FahCore down, continuing from the same frame. Does it affect the points awarded or so? Good thing I can usually bunch in the updates, last time it was a few software updates and a third HDD :rolleyes:
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
hynke
Apr 27, 06:17 AM
As far as I know the "App Store" trademark hasn't been granted to Apple yet, therefore Amazon can use it for now. On the other hand Apple just cannot sit there and do nothing about it, they must deffend the trademark they are trying to register even if it hasn't been registered yet.
I also have to admit that it surely is a very good publicity stunt by Amazon. Their new "Appstore" is now all over the web.
I also have to admit that it surely is a very good publicity stunt by Amazon. Their new "Appstore" is now all over the web.
Spanky Deluxe
Nov 27, 01:26 PM
Wow, for the first time ever I actually beat MacRumors: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3095478#post3095478
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
I think a 17" model would be a good idea for Apple. It'll stop people buying Minis from getting their LCD fix from elsewhere to some extent and won't cost Apple a bean in R&D costs since they already use 17" panels in the iMac and have all the internals ready because of the 20" and 23" ACDs. It would only need a different sized chassis to be designed.
Habakuk
Mar 26, 03:13 AM
touchArcade wrote (http://toucharcade.com/2011/03/25/digging-into-ipad-2s-hdmi-out-and-what-it-means-for-games/): "…clean digital signal while the VGA and component cables provide analog output only (and lack audio information)."
This is not true. The component (and composite) cable provides audio. The VGA does not. It's okay that the small iDevices offer multiple video out (and audio out) options:
- Headphone out
- Docks (balanced analog audio out only)
- Component cable
- Composite cable (not compatible with Component)
- VGA adapter
- HDMI
- and last but not least wireless Apple TV 2
They all offer different options and techniques for different purposes. Digital/analog, CRT TV sets, balanced/unbalanced audio, mirroring or not. Serves for just viewing your photos and videos, for DJs, VJs, video editing, presentations etc.
I am using them frequently. There should be an article that points out the differences. I am sure even the software devs don't know exactly everything on that topic.
This is not true. The component (and composite) cable provides audio. The VGA does not. It's okay that the small iDevices offer multiple video out (and audio out) options:
- Headphone out
- Docks (balanced analog audio out only)
- Component cable
- Composite cable (not compatible with Component)
- VGA adapter
- HDMI
- and last but not least wireless Apple TV 2
They all offer different options and techniques for different purposes. Digital/analog, CRT TV sets, balanced/unbalanced audio, mirroring or not. Serves for just viewing your photos and videos, for DJs, VJs, video editing, presentations etc.
I am using them frequently. There should be an article that points out the differences. I am sure even the software devs don't know exactly everything on that topic.
frankie
Aug 25, 10:41 AM
I thought Yonah and Merom are basically the same cost-wise. That's why everyone thinks including merom in new systems won't raise the price of those systems.
Exactly so. For everyone's reference, here's a current Intel price chart (per CPU in lots of 1000): http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html
It makes certain options quite clear. For example:
Exactly so. For everyone's reference, here's a current Intel price chart (per CPU in lots of 1000): http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html
It makes certain options quite clear. For example:
AppliedVisual
Nov 16, 03:13 PM
In this class of RAM the 2GB sticks are now less than two 1GB sticks. So I don't see why buying only 1GB sticks would be advisable any more.
It would definitely be best to use 2GB modules. They're cheaper per GB. Additinally, the memory access in the Mac Pro (or should I say with Intel's current FB-DIMM controller implementation) requires the second memory pair on each riser to communicate with the system by going through the the first pair and this can potentially add some latency.
AV was saying that the 512 sticks run half as fast as 1 and 2GB sticks. Is that not correct or did I misunderstand what he meant?
No you understood right, however this may not be the case now... After doing some more digging, this is in no way a limitation of the FB-DIMM design or a requirement. But rather initial modules in smaller capacities (256 and 512 MB) were only using one of the onboard channels to increase the latency. All I can find is various discussions and references to this happening regarding various Samsung and Kingston modules... Doesn't appear that any of this is linked to modules approved by Apple or that meet Apple's specs for the Mac Pro. So I may have been off-base. I'll see what else I can dig up...
I don't know if I'd expect that either. Has intel dropped the prices on dual core version yet? Or just introduced the quad core at higher prices?
Pricing was adjusted on tuesday for the dual-core offerings. However, I don't know what the new prices are. But this wasn't the first time prices have been adjusted since they started shipping the dual-core chips... Intel adjusts prices every few weeks. Sometimes up, but usually down.
You asked why anyone would use handbrake to rip from optical disk. I answered your question. People do it all the time, it's very common to rip DVDs.
Ripping one DVD here or there makes sense to just drop in the disc and go for it. But if you have several to do, it can be a lot faster to create images of the discs and then rip them, especially if you image with a couple systems and then have a couple others doing the ripping / re-encoding, especially if you're trying to keep the quality very high.
It would definitely be best to use 2GB modules. They're cheaper per GB. Additinally, the memory access in the Mac Pro (or should I say with Intel's current FB-DIMM controller implementation) requires the second memory pair on each riser to communicate with the system by going through the the first pair and this can potentially add some latency.
AV was saying that the 512 sticks run half as fast as 1 and 2GB sticks. Is that not correct or did I misunderstand what he meant?
No you understood right, however this may not be the case now... After doing some more digging, this is in no way a limitation of the FB-DIMM design or a requirement. But rather initial modules in smaller capacities (256 and 512 MB) were only using one of the onboard channels to increase the latency. All I can find is various discussions and references to this happening regarding various Samsung and Kingston modules... Doesn't appear that any of this is linked to modules approved by Apple or that meet Apple's specs for the Mac Pro. So I may have been off-base. I'll see what else I can dig up...
I don't know if I'd expect that either. Has intel dropped the prices on dual core version yet? Or just introduced the quad core at higher prices?
Pricing was adjusted on tuesday for the dual-core offerings. However, I don't know what the new prices are. But this wasn't the first time prices have been adjusted since they started shipping the dual-core chips... Intel adjusts prices every few weeks. Sometimes up, but usually down.
You asked why anyone would use handbrake to rip from optical disk. I answered your question. People do it all the time, it's very common to rip DVDs.
Ripping one DVD here or there makes sense to just drop in the disc and go for it. But if you have several to do, it can be a lot faster to create images of the discs and then rip them, especially if you image with a couple systems and then have a couple others doing the ripping / re-encoding, especially if you're trying to keep the quality very high.
JoeG4
Feb 27, 02:06 AM
You can always tell the 22" because they have the power LCD below the bezel instead of on it. Three buttons too! Power, and brightness up/down. Even stranger, the buttons are mechanical clear pieces of plastic (and the power light is this big pill-shaped thing that hangs inside the power button).
It was such a neat design! And then there was the translucent black frame (The backlight sorta bleeds through em too, also cool). The DVI 22" had a GREEN (amber pulsing while sleeping) power light and had a UFO-shaped breakout box at the end of its cable for the USB/power/DVI. Very cool.
The sucky part about the 22" LCD was that it had a really high defect rate. However, it was introduced at a time when 15" LCDs were a luxury item, so it was more like the Ferrari of LCDs of its time. :D
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
It was such a neat design! And then there was the translucent black frame (The backlight sorta bleeds through em too, also cool). The DVI 22" had a GREEN (amber pulsing while sleeping) power light and had a UFO-shaped breakout box at the end of its cable for the USB/power/DVI. Very cool.
The sucky part about the 22" LCD was that it had a really high defect rate. However, it was introduced at a time when 15" LCDs were a luxury item, so it was more like the Ferrari of LCDs of its time. :D
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh! Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
Being 14 and stupid FTW?
Flowbee
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod. Sure you can use the output from the dock to play it on your tv, but if you have a slightly big tv, it doesn't look DVD quality.
You don't need the dock, you can just use a cable (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/).
I have to believe that movie downloads will be higher quality than the current TV shows.
You don't need the dock, you can just use a cable (http://podophile.com/2006/08/16/watch-ipod-videos-on-your-tv/).
I have to believe that movie downloads will be higher quality than the current TV shows.
thisisahughes
Apr 3, 06:19 AM
I like the black theme A LOT more than the all white themes. I hope to see more like this in the future.