Astro7x
Apr 6, 11:29 AM
FCP supporting Bluray is irrelevant if Apple does not start putting Bluray drives into its Macs. The nice thing about the Superdrive is that I know if I have a Mac, I can do anything related to DVDs. I can play them, I can burn them, I can do Dual Layer. It's just as simple as "You have a Mac? You can play this disc!". Does anybody remember the days before DVD Drives became standard in computers? I remember giving DVDs to people that wouldn't play, and then having to have them crouch down next to their PC and read off the faintly printed logos on the drive and tell me if it said CD-ROM.
All the haters that are against Bluray, you have to admit that if it was a Bluray drive in every single Mac made that the requests for Bluray would be much higher.
I've dealt with clients that when our Client's Client needs to sign off on a final video, we have to mail them a DVD. Because they are so stupid that they either don't know how to download a file, can't play a file because their computers are so locked down they can't install quicktime (think bigger corporate environments where you need permission to install anything), or are just idiots to the point where all they can understand is "Put this disc in this slot". I remember having a end client one time where the DVD Video Logo on the disc wasn't enough, and I had to spell out on the disc label. "This disc will only play on a DVD Player". And then apparently that wording was too confusing and I had to reword it to "This disc will only play IN a DVD Player". Then they put the DVD in the computer and it wouldn't play. Sent their IT department to the owners office and find out that they downloaded DVD Playing software earlier that was on a trial, the trial ran out, then since it became their default DVD player they were incapable of playing DVDs.
I've also had stupid clients request DVDs (because files is too difficult...), fire it up on their 27 inch Cinema Display, then complain that the video is blurry because they don't understand the concepts of resolutions and that if a Standard Definition DVD plays full screen you're blowing it up 3 times it's normal size probably.
It's pretty ignorant to say Apple shouldn't support Bluray because you personally don't use it. I haven't put a spot to tape in forever, should the next Final Cut Pro not include export to tape options because it's a dying format?
All the haters that are against Bluray, you have to admit that if it was a Bluray drive in every single Mac made that the requests for Bluray would be much higher.
I've dealt with clients that when our Client's Client needs to sign off on a final video, we have to mail them a DVD. Because they are so stupid that they either don't know how to download a file, can't play a file because their computers are so locked down they can't install quicktime (think bigger corporate environments where you need permission to install anything), or are just idiots to the point where all they can understand is "Put this disc in this slot". I remember having a end client one time where the DVD Video Logo on the disc wasn't enough, and I had to spell out on the disc label. "This disc will only play on a DVD Player". And then apparently that wording was too confusing and I had to reword it to "This disc will only play IN a DVD Player". Then they put the DVD in the computer and it wouldn't play. Sent their IT department to the owners office and find out that they downloaded DVD Playing software earlier that was on a trial, the trial ran out, then since it became their default DVD player they were incapable of playing DVDs.
I've also had stupid clients request DVDs (because files is too difficult...), fire it up on their 27 inch Cinema Display, then complain that the video is blurry because they don't understand the concepts of resolutions and that if a Standard Definition DVD plays full screen you're blowing it up 3 times it's normal size probably.
It's pretty ignorant to say Apple shouldn't support Bluray because you personally don't use it. I haven't put a spot to tape in forever, should the next Final Cut Pro not include export to tape options because it's a dying format?
bep207
Aug 15, 01:03 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
DeathChill
Apr 19, 08:06 PM
Me, Urg, first caveman to make rock round! Michelin and Firestone steal idea!
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet. You have a bulletproof case; let's sue.
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet. You have a bulletproof case; let's sue.
twoodcc
Apr 5, 09:55 PM
interesting. hope this really happens, and it's good! and cheaper too!
ProwlingTiger
Mar 31, 07:48 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) Mobile/8G4)
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
Well said.
I'm wondering what exactly will be "open" about Android now that Andy Rubin has to approve everything.
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
Well said.
I'm wondering what exactly will be "open" about Android now that Andy Rubin has to approve everything.
newyorksole
Apr 11, 02:52 PM
Honestly, I don't mind waiting. The iPhone 4 is a BEAUTIFUL phone. Takes great pictures, fast, responsive, high-res screen etc etc. New apps are being released all the time and getting updated.
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
While I enjoy the 4 Apple is trying to make the iPhone 5 and iOS 5 amazing so that it'll be MORE than ready for prime time.
We have so much to look forward to: Lion, New MobileMe, Server Farm, iPhone 5, iOS 5
aohus
Apr 19, 02:35 PM
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
Apple may face special problems because of admissions made by its chairman, John Sculley, in his 1987 book, ''Odyssey,'' a chronicle of his split with Apple's co-founder, Steven P. Jobs. ''Much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' he wrote. ''Indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed'' at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
yoak
Apr 6, 06:59 AM
Hmm we have a Blu Ray burner in our duplication bay in 3 years and approx 1500 hrs of Broadcast HD TV it has only been used so editors can take home personal projects to screen them.
Really do not see the need for Blu Ray at all there are so many other better suited formats.
It all depends on what you do for a living I suppose. I can see wedding video makers would want to deliver blu-ray.
I don�t do weddings, but I would at least like to have the option to easily make a Blu-Ray longer than 20min . Now every time we give people a HD format of what we have done, we usually end up with an Apple TV HD file and that�s a very compressed HD file IMHO.
Really do not see the need for Blu Ray at all there are so many other better suited formats.
It all depends on what you do for a living I suppose. I can see wedding video makers would want to deliver blu-ray.
I don�t do weddings, but I would at least like to have the option to easily make a Blu-Ray longer than 20min . Now every time we give people a HD format of what we have done, we usually end up with an Apple TV HD file and that�s a very compressed HD file IMHO.
SevenInchScrew
Nov 29, 12:38 PM
Play it over the weekend - My biggest problem is theres nothing ground breaking about it. Kind of "more of the same" but with updated graphics (VERY good graphics mind you).
That is, sadly, pretty much how I feel as well. It sure is pretty. I mean, DAMN does it look amazing at times. I really enjoyed Photo Mode as well. But beyond that, I just didn't find the rest of it very compelling. I've said this before, but it just seems that the product that Kaz and PD want to make just doesn't appeal to me any more. Which is a bummer, because I REALLY enjoyed the first few GT games.
That is, sadly, pretty much how I feel as well. It sure is pretty. I mean, DAMN does it look amazing at times. I really enjoyed Photo Mode as well. But beyond that, I just didn't find the rest of it very compelling. I've said this before, but it just seems that the product that Kaz and PD want to make just doesn't appeal to me any more. Which is a bummer, because I REALLY enjoyed the first few GT games.
nightcap965
Apr 25, 02:27 PM
Lawsuits are filed against Apple every week. That's why they have their own legal department and engage powerful firms as outside counsel. Any idiot can file suit. Nothing to see here, move along.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
Personally, if anyone were to gain unauthorized access to either my computers or my iPhone, I've got far more serious problems than someone knowing my day-to-day travels. Hacker's Law: Once I have physical access to your computer, it is no longer your computer. Anyone who doesn't treat his smartphone with the same care and attention he gives his wallet will soon have neither.
dejunky
Apr 6, 03:41 PM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes.
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:19 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:08 PM
Sorry about the caps but everyone should see this:
EVERYONE: THE PICTURE POSTED HERE IS STRAIGHT FUD. THE F700 WAS NOT ANNOUNCED AT CEBIT 2006! THIS IS A LIE!
Here are the phones they announced: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
So, is it possible for a mod to get rid of this? It's trolling and FUD at its finest.
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
EVERYONE: THE PICTURE POSTED HERE IS STRAIGHT FUD. THE F700 WAS NOT ANNOUNCED AT CEBIT 2006! THIS IS A LIE!
Here are the phones they announced: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
So, is it possible for a mod to get rid of this? It's trolling and FUD at its finest.
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 02:58 PM
What do you mean "if"? (http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/)
Thank you. I was trying to find that. :)
Thank you. I was trying to find that. :)
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
URFloorMatt
Apr 11, 11:55 AM
To me this means 4G and Verizon/AT&T hardware convergence. Both, good news.Agreed. But I don't get all this confusion over fiscal 2012 and calendar 2012. Are there analysts really stupid enough to believe that Apple would kill any future iPhone sales at Christmas by shifting the iPhone to a January release schedule? And do they really think Apple would preview iOS 5 a full six months before release? That said, if I sit on my iPhone 3GS until Sept/Oct and the new iPhone doesn't have 4G, I'll probably never buy another Apple product again.
For those interested in holding out for iPad 3, I do think moving the iPhone into a fall release frame opens the door to delaying the iPad 3 launch until summer 2012. On the plus side, that would leave the spring conspicuously empty, which might indicate a major MacBook Pro refresh (i.e. new casing) for next year.
For those interested in holding out for iPad 3, I do think moving the iPhone into a fall release frame opens the door to delaying the iPad 3 launch until summer 2012. On the plus side, that would leave the spring conspicuously empty, which might indicate a major MacBook Pro refresh (i.e. new casing) for next year.
Sydde
Apr 27, 06:17 PM
The bigger deal here is the tendency of some fathers to name their kids the EXACT same name they have and add a "2nd". I've always thought that practice couldn't be stupidier. :P
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
THX1139
Apr 10, 05:54 PM
There is a part of me that hopes Apple screws up and dumbs down FCS. This is the only remaining software that keeps me buying expensive Macs. If they turn FCS into a glorified iApp, then I'm dumping my Mac's and moving on to a build your own PC where I can run Linux and all of the industry standard professional apps.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 04:10 PM
hey ill be happy as apple keeps the mac pro on the cutting edge, but anything to be able to bring the ram cost down would be awesome.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
andy721
Mar 25, 11:57 PM
Mac OS 10.7 is out but for developers so its not GM yet, it's 3.35GB
DavidLeblond
Jul 27, 11:24 AM
Considering some of the rumors I'm thinking all the marbles would be:
MacPro
MBP, MB, iMac, Mini processor update
Leopard Preview
iTunes Movie Store
Larger capacity nanos
True Video iPod
So, you're right. Not a chance we're getting all of that (one can only dream).
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
MacPro
MBP, MB, iMac, Mini processor update
Leopard Preview
iTunes Movie Store
Larger capacity nanos
True Video iPod
So, you're right. Not a chance we're getting all of that (one can only dream).
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 12:23 PM
This was his response: "Cloverton is not 64, Cloverton MP (Tigerton) is 64 and is still on the drawing board last I heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment