l3lack J4ck
Nov 24, 12:05 AM
will it serioulsy take them 2 hours to update...becuase now it is 10:00 pst.....
bikertwin
Sep 25, 03:51 PM
Technically my POWERMAC G4 can run iMovie, Keynote, and other mac software. RUNNING and FUNCTIONING (at a reasonable speed) are two totally different things. iPhoto takes a day to get going. I can't imagine aperture.
Anyway... I don't want to ruin anybody's happy day, but the reality is, if you don't have the latest and greatest Apple Machine, the current software runs pretty slow.
Go to the Apple store (yes, this means some of you will have to leave your apartment) and try running this software on a mac mini. Don't get depressed when it takes your entire lunch break to start the software. Forget about moving stacks of photos around and editing. As I mentioned... I had problems with the G5 QUAD and the original aperture at my Apple Store in Seattle.
Just a thought.
I wouldn't get too excited about Aperture running on 'lighter' hardware such as MacBooks or Mac minis. I think the idea is that, rather than doing hardcore raw file processing on these lightweight hardware products, you'd just have your JPEG-preview-only Aperture library on these machines. So the really speedy functionality on this lightweight hardware would be limited to organizing, sorting, searching, slideshows, etc. of pre-generated JPEG previews.
I doubt we'll be doing hardcore bulk raw processing on a Mac mini, even with Aperture 1.5. But I wouldn't mind if we could.
Anyway... I don't want to ruin anybody's happy day, but the reality is, if you don't have the latest and greatest Apple Machine, the current software runs pretty slow.
Go to the Apple store (yes, this means some of you will have to leave your apartment) and try running this software on a mac mini. Don't get depressed when it takes your entire lunch break to start the software. Forget about moving stacks of photos around and editing. As I mentioned... I had problems with the G5 QUAD and the original aperture at my Apple Store in Seattle.
Just a thought.
I wouldn't get too excited about Aperture running on 'lighter' hardware such as MacBooks or Mac minis. I think the idea is that, rather than doing hardcore raw file processing on these lightweight hardware products, you'd just have your JPEG-preview-only Aperture library on these machines. So the really speedy functionality on this lightweight hardware would be limited to organizing, sorting, searching, slideshows, etc. of pre-generated JPEG previews.
I doubt we'll be doing hardcore bulk raw processing on a Mac mini, even with Aperture 1.5. But I wouldn't mind if we could.
ngenerator
May 2, 09:36 AM
Agree with above. Plus, how else would yesterday have turned out without location tracking ;)
dabear
Apr 29, 04:11 PM
I noticed on an aforementioned wikipedia page that Samba was removed...
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
Apple invented their own software for interfacing with the smb protocol (and v2 of the protocol). The samba version included in OS X is horribly outdated, and the shift is most probably due to the new license of Samba (was gpl v2, is now GPL v3).
So you can still connect via the smb:// protocol :)
Does this mean I cannot connect to a linux server via smb:// ???
Not everything is a windows workgroup... :(
I mean I guess it's not a huge deal since I can ssh in, but I liked mounting it as a volume from finder.
Apple invented their own software for interfacing with the smb protocol (and v2 of the protocol). The samba version included in OS X is horribly outdated, and the shift is most probably due to the new license of Samba (was gpl v2, is now GPL v3).
So you can still connect via the smb:// protocol :)
caspersoong
Apr 29, 09:07 PM
Will the Macbook Air 2011 get it? Hope so.
DevinPitcher
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
Agreed.
Agreed.
Singin Hobo
Apr 5, 03:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
They should charge for this. It would totally be worth it.
They should charge for this. It would totally be worth it.
Cleverboy
Jan 13, 10:13 AM
Agreed that it was stupid, and may hurt credibility, but i still love reading gizmodo, and would not wish to see them banned from MW or the next CES. People do stupid things, if they do it again, ban them, but i say let them off the hook for this one.They did not emphatically apologize for poor judgement. Briam Lam himself says that the only thing he didn't approve was doing it during press conferences... but when the error has occurred, you need to apologize for the whole incident, not say, "Sorry, we only wanted to screw around with some people, not others." Vendors PAID MONEY to attend this event. Gizmodo willfully inteferered with press conferences, and hasn't editted the article to include anything resembling a wholesale apology. --Just, "Look at this COOL thing we did! Isn't it hilarious! You can do it too!"
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
gekko513
Aug 2, 02:47 AM
Lyra, your tone is condescending. Calling Scandinavian laws "perverted" tells us that you're single minded to begin with and that your points can't be taken seriously.
I'll still address the point you make about the size of the Scandinavian market. The total population of the Scandinavian countries are 18.9 million. The total population of the USA is 296 million. The size of the Scandinavian market is only 6.4% of the size of the US market, but if Apple pulls out it's still lost income, potentially up to a couple of percent of what Apple makes in the US if you count loss of sales of music and the domino effect that will cause loss of sales of iPods and Macs.
Of course Apple can survive without the Scandinavian market, but why give up potential profit for nothing except stubbornness?
I'll still address the point you make about the size of the Scandinavian market. The total population of the Scandinavian countries are 18.9 million. The total population of the USA is 296 million. The size of the Scandinavian market is only 6.4% of the size of the US market, but if Apple pulls out it's still lost income, potentially up to a couple of percent of what Apple makes in the US if you count loss of sales of music and the domino effect that will cause loss of sales of iPods and Macs.
Of course Apple can survive without the Scandinavian market, but why give up potential profit for nothing except stubbornness?
AlBDamned
Nov 10, 03:50 AM
I got my copy at about 10am on release day here in Aus, and have had about 3 hours so far - 50/50 on campaign/multiplayer.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
calderone
Apr 10, 10:31 PM
http://p.mdcd.net/product_images/full/45be79751d8454084fe5362f1d9dc3f9e5f9e3d7.jpg
Got a great deal on a used executive model. Loving it so far.
Got a great deal on a used executive model. Loving it so far.
840quadra
Sep 25, 11:13 AM
Waits for an iGary™ post regarding this!
Anyway, this is good news. I am seriously looking into purchasing this. I am now taking over 1gb of photos at each motocross event I am going to recently. That is allot considering i am also racing those events (taking pictures of other races duh! )
So far I am not impressed with the Adobe offering unveiled today. Unless I am doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to have full screen editing features ?
I need something more with more power than iPhoto, and would love to be able to batch edit, and Watermark (can Aperture even do this ? )
Anyway, this is good news. I am seriously looking into purchasing this. I am now taking over 1gb of photos at each motocross event I am going to recently. That is allot considering i am also racing those events (taking pictures of other races duh! )
So far I am not impressed with the Adobe offering unveiled today. Unless I am doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to have full screen editing features ?
I need something more with more power than iPhoto, and would love to be able to batch edit, and Watermark (can Aperture even do this ? )
SmileyBlast!
Apr 29, 03:12 PM
Nope.
That iCal is kinda annoying.
That iCal is kinda annoying.
megfilmworks
Jan 10, 06:41 PM
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art -
Huh?? I think your first priority should be a lesson in how to write.
Huh?? I think your first priority should be a lesson in how to write.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
yeah, the iTunes videos are definitely referencing movies I'd say. I mean we all know it was happening. The surprise is the non-disney titles, since we'd all assumed that that would be all Jobs was able to pull. But then again I don't see why studios would sign up with Amazon video, relatively unproven in digital content delivery, without signing up with iTMS, a very much proven system. I'm sure that's a huge part of Jobs negotiations, not ever once asking for anything exclusive. (That would be what his disney connections might be able to get him). If they're worried about being locked in to the iTMS, then they're free to allow whoever they want to to sell their stuff. The pricing scheme right now as rumored is at least two tiered, one for new releases and one for old, so yes, Mr. Movie Studio, you can make more money off your hot newest thing.
The links from that iTunes Videos thing DO NOT point to any movies. They point to iPod versions of movie trailers. It's just a consolidation of the current content.
But saying that doesn't matter because people aren't reading the thread.
The links from that iTunes Videos thing DO NOT point to any movies. They point to iPod versions of movie trailers. It's just a consolidation of the current content.
But saying that doesn't matter because people aren't reading the thread.
MattyMac
Sep 12, 08:48 AM
Probably not. They'll release new nanos after the student rebate is over.
not true....last year they introduced the nano before the student rebate was over with the mini.
not true....last year they introduced the nano before the student rebate was over with the mini.
davepoint
Aug 14, 01:29 PM
the world sucks
Calidude
Apr 16, 05:00 PM
Is your dictionary still in print, and how would I order one?
Yes, I do believe Merriam Webster is still up and running...
Yes, I do believe Merriam Webster is still up and running...
DeSnousa
Apr 11, 01:26 AM
yeah i know! i don't know what's going on these days. apple is only concerned with iphone and ipad, but developers gotta have systems to build the apps with!
and not just that, apple has a market for mac pros. but it will only continue to get smaller if they ignore it
Mate if you think thats bad, I'n holding out for a Mac mini and there has been no rumors for it! Would love to see a intel i5 :D
and not just that, apple has a market for mac pros. but it will only continue to get smaller if they ignore it
Mate if you think thats bad, I'n holding out for a Mac mini and there has been no rumors for it! Would love to see a intel i5 :D
sn
Apr 26, 04:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
I think the image has been played around with a bit but I don't know if that means it's definitely fake. It looks like everything in the image (hand, keyboard) are so brightly lit that the screen on the phone would have to look a lot more glarey/reflective/shiny than that. Unless the new screen is also a lot more matte. But it doesn't look right to me. Or maybe it's paper like a few people have suggested.
Edit, just realised the screen is obviously not more matte after looking at the second picture. I refuse to believe those are the same screens! Definitely suspicious...
I also believe that, as someone has suggested, the handset might be a tad smaller rather that the screen being bigger.
kuebby
May 3, 04:13 PM
Oh god, the irony! The irony!
ChrisA
Sep 26, 11:52 AM
Ignore me if you wish, but I'm pretty sad about not getting the machine promised by the rumour mill. I'm happy for y'all with your updated photo software, but wouldn't you have liked it to be true that we'd get a nice new C2D MBP to use it on?
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
*LTD*
Apr 23, 05:17 PM
It is no secret that pedophiles have been known to hack children's computers to gain access to their webcam pictures, messenger conversations and ect. If that child has an iPhone and the said pedophile knows the file that contains the iPhone locations; what the pedo essentially has is the child's daily or weekly routine of where they are.
I buy it. Slim chance, but certainly possible and certainly doable.
I'd have to disagree. There are a lot of ways to keep tabs on someone if you wish to do them harm. The issue is whether the (as yet unknown) purpose of this data is useful enough to justify it's being there in the state it's in. There is no immediate way it gives anyone any special or expedient means of causing another harm. You'll need a lot of contingencies and variables come together to form specific cases. I really don't see that happening. That said, the reasons I've seen so far aren't that nefarious. It actually makes sense to be tracked in this way, especially in light of the argument that it's a caching mechanism in order to make it easier to switch from tower to tower. I can believe this. I don't believe there's any evil behind it. Nor do I for the moment believe this is easily accessible by anyone other than physically by the user/owner of the phone. And then it's likely not easy for the average person.
Said paedophile *before* this information has been able to track children without problems using other means, I'd wager. Likely easier means, though I'm not well-versed in the specific modus operandi of paedophiles. I suspect I'll need forensics/law enforcement training to get a complete understanding.
Besides, your example is based upon pure conjecture. First assumption is they are able to hack into their phone. Is hacking into iPhones remoely a big problem out in the wild? Not that I've heard or seen.
What I'm saying is take the "wait and see" aproach before we begin to vilify and condemn Apple as self-serving, careless data-mining opportunists.
So it's a plea for sanity. But I've noticed that whenever Apple's quarterly report rolls around and it's usually stellar news, the insanity of our loveable contrarians ramps up, purely for the purpose of being contrarians, as if we need to "balance out" all the enthusiasm with careful doses of negativity so we're not *too* positive. I'm not referring to you, roadbloc, by the way.
So in any case, this is my position, and I'll say it's the same position I'd take if it were Google and MS.
I buy it. Slim chance, but certainly possible and certainly doable.
I'd have to disagree. There are a lot of ways to keep tabs on someone if you wish to do them harm. The issue is whether the (as yet unknown) purpose of this data is useful enough to justify it's being there in the state it's in. There is no immediate way it gives anyone any special or expedient means of causing another harm. You'll need a lot of contingencies and variables come together to form specific cases. I really don't see that happening. That said, the reasons I've seen so far aren't that nefarious. It actually makes sense to be tracked in this way, especially in light of the argument that it's a caching mechanism in order to make it easier to switch from tower to tower. I can believe this. I don't believe there's any evil behind it. Nor do I for the moment believe this is easily accessible by anyone other than physically by the user/owner of the phone. And then it's likely not easy for the average person.
Said paedophile *before* this information has been able to track children without problems using other means, I'd wager. Likely easier means, though I'm not well-versed in the specific modus operandi of paedophiles. I suspect I'll need forensics/law enforcement training to get a complete understanding.
Besides, your example is based upon pure conjecture. First assumption is they are able to hack into their phone. Is hacking into iPhones remoely a big problem out in the wild? Not that I've heard or seen.
What I'm saying is take the "wait and see" aproach before we begin to vilify and condemn Apple as self-serving, careless data-mining opportunists.
So it's a plea for sanity. But I've noticed that whenever Apple's quarterly report rolls around and it's usually stellar news, the insanity of our loveable contrarians ramps up, purely for the purpose of being contrarians, as if we need to "balance out" all the enthusiasm with careful doses of negativity so we're not *too* positive. I'm not referring to you, roadbloc, by the way.
So in any case, this is my position, and I'll say it's the same position I'd take if it were Google and MS.
mikegtown
Apr 15, 12:35 PM
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
