- videos,free justin phone
- Tags: justin bieber wallpapers
- 20143 Justinbieber2 Cell Phone
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- free justin bieber jpg phone
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- Tags: justin bieber wallpapers
- ipad phone wallpaper free
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- Justin Bieber wallpapers
- Screenshots: Justin Bieber
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- justin bieber phone wallpaper
- Justin Bieber Wallpaper
- Free+justin+ieber+phone+
- Screenshots: Justin Bieber -
- Free+justin+ieber+phone+
itsmeGAV
Jan 7, 10:07 AM
I was spending a hell of a lot of money a week on petrol, so it's possibly the best move I've ever made in all honesty! I will eventually buy a Mk4 R32 for show purposes only!
roadbloc
Mar 31, 08:33 AM
iCal looks awful. I hope this is temporary or an April fools joke.
twoodcc
Apr 14, 07:39 PM
So I should put the -bigadv into my i7, it's not a great i7 I think its at 1.66ghz and in a laptop. Should I risk it? How can I maximise the PPD from my i7 as its only doing like 1-2k a day I think.
sorry, i should have been more clear. i forgot that they have i7 laptop processors out. only the desktop processors can do -bigadv units, and they gotta be overclocked to be worth it (they are very easy to overclock).
1.66 Ghz and a laptop isn't going to make it for bigadv units they need to be completed within about 3-4 days to make it worthwhile and I doubt your machine would make that time frame. An overclocked i7 920 at about 3-4? Ghz will work. My i7 920 is not overclocked so I don't do bigadv units on it and it also is running 3 gpu's so it has some overhead from them.
yeah, i wouldn't overclock with 3 gpu's in there (well, actually i'd probably try it, but you're doing so well with ppd already, not worth the risk)
Hey twoodcc, when did you sneak past lyzardking, I totally missed it, congrats for making it to 3rd place! And you're at about 1200th place overall, won't be long before you get to 3 digits!
haha, thanks. yeah i think i moved into 3rd yesterday or the day before. yeah looking forward to 3 digits. i just gotta get this other system up and running. i really need to rearrange my gpus again, but just haven't had the time
sorry, i should have been more clear. i forgot that they have i7 laptop processors out. only the desktop processors can do -bigadv units, and they gotta be overclocked to be worth it (they are very easy to overclock).
1.66 Ghz and a laptop isn't going to make it for bigadv units they need to be completed within about 3-4 days to make it worthwhile and I doubt your machine would make that time frame. An overclocked i7 920 at about 3-4? Ghz will work. My i7 920 is not overclocked so I don't do bigadv units on it and it also is running 3 gpu's so it has some overhead from them.
yeah, i wouldn't overclock with 3 gpu's in there (well, actually i'd probably try it, but you're doing so well with ppd already, not worth the risk)
Hey twoodcc, when did you sneak past lyzardking, I totally missed it, congrats for making it to 3rd place! And you're at about 1200th place overall, won't be long before you get to 3 digits!
haha, thanks. yeah i think i moved into 3rd yesterday or the day before. yeah looking forward to 3 digits. i just gotta get this other system up and running. i really need to rearrange my gpus again, but just haven't had the time
stcanard
Nov 30, 10:47 AM
Another way to ask this question: If Apple decided to compete head-to-head with this feature, what should they do differently?
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Here's the funny thing, I can tell you a feature is poorly thought out, even if I can't necessarily tell you how to solve it :) The fact that we don't have an answer is probably a good start on why the iPod doesn't already do it.
First thing I can say is this: Dump the idea of restrictions on non-DRM'd songs. If "the guy with guitar" wants to beam you his own song he should be allowed to decide that you can keep it as long as you want and send it to as many people as you want.
This goes back to the root of the problem with these devices and online stores: The record labels aren't worried about piracy, they're worried about all the guys on the street being able to bypass them by advertising virally then selling their own burned CDs. Sure it's only one or two now people now, but then it starts to grow, and some band ends up hitting it big and getting radio play, then everybody starts doing it, and then gradually the RIAA loses their money train.
Philberttheduck
Sep 6, 05:22 PM
I gave it a positive rating because it means the release of the iPhone is imminent and will be the sole feature of the next event. I mean, if Apple has the balls to stick the Mac Mini update right next to the iMac's release of the 24" model, they have a HUGER release.
Crap, I don't know if I can afford both a fullscreen iPod AND an iPhone. You ask for a higher time for Apple.. and you (hopefully) get after Sept. 12. If only I was 18 and could buy stock...
Crap, I don't know if I can afford both a fullscreen iPod AND an iPhone. You ask for a higher time for Apple.. and you (hopefully) get after Sept. 12. If only I was 18 and could buy stock...
NAG
Jan 12, 04:41 PM
just because they used Air in their banner doesn't mean its called MacBook Air.. Apple is not stupid.. its all about slim and light..
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
Not Found
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
I'll be the one who'll tell you "I told you so" ;) .. enjoy the show!
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4732961&postcount=94
or this..
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4733969&postcount=100
:apple:MacBook Lite:apple:
Feb 2008
Not Found
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
ipearx
Aug 7, 05:48 AM
An iPhone, not as a cell phone, but as a landline skype style wifi cordless phone to go with iChat. Wouldn't that make sense for Apple to make? Ties in with their computers & iLife, would work in all countries, and would be easy, and possibly cheap for them to make.
Steve Jobs, would probably want want to make a phone that transitions seamlessly between indoor wifi and the cell networks.
Steve Jobs, would probably want want to make a phone that transitions seamlessly between indoor wifi and the cell networks.
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
Fuchal
Mar 22, 03:49 PM
Just curious, Why?
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
Bluetooth headphones, bluetooth audio in cars, etc
skiltrip
Oct 11, 08:37 PM
I just received the Belkin Grip Vue (Tint) from belkin.com. It's structurally exactly the same as the Grip Vue cases from Best Buy, without the extremely bright and obnoxious colors. The (Tint) is translucent, so you can see your iPod logo thru the back. But it's slightly frosted on the inside, so you get NO watermarking, and it makes the back look really nice. I got the black one, which is basically a really dark smoke color. Really subtle and nice case.
One very noticeable improvement over the Best Buy Grip Vues is that the volume buttons are way easier to press. I have been using my Best Buy Grip Vue for a week, and the buttons have broken in a little and have become easier. But the buttons on the Grip Vue (Tint) right out of the box are easier to press. Maybe the clearer material is just inherently a little bit softer.
Source URL: https://free1image.blogspot.com/2011/05/justin-bieber-phone-wallpaper-free.html
Visit free image for daily updated images of art collection
One very noticeable improvement over the Best Buy Grip Vues is that the volume buttons are way easier to press. I have been using my Best Buy Grip Vue for a week, and the buttons have broken in a little and have become easier. But the buttons on the Grip Vue (Tint) right out of the box are easier to press. Maybe the clearer material is just inherently a little bit softer.
propynyl
Mar 22, 04:26 PM
Hard drives are a dying technology. Rightfully so! Any non-computer with a HD should be killed! And in the next few years, HDs should go the way of the floppy.
supremedesigner
Jul 19, 05:51 PM
What, the analysts weren't even close? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:
analysts always assumed too much!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
analysts always assumed too much!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
dwarnecke11
Sep 30, 10:12 AM
I finally ordered a case. I'm sick of waiting for Best Buy to stock some decent cases.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042BBHMS/ref=oss_product
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0042BBHMS/ref=oss_product
OdduWon
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
Deep pockets or not, MS will have a struggle to find a niche. But at least they were smart enough to put in a radio.
Agreed, even though am/Fm is in decline, People STILL LOVE FM, there are some great indie college stations around. Which if i could listen to on my ipod i would. If every ipod had a tuner then people on campus could all listen, and experience the same thing. outside the station on campus they have speakers playing whats on air. People gather in the courtyard and socialize, at certain times probbably too. This could be a easy feature to add with big impact.
Also, :D , Perhaps the current iPod fm adapter will become the iStation/PodCaster? A light to signal on air, and others can tune in to hear your playlists or some type of browsing or podcast viewing emitted from the shuffle sized transmitter:rolleyes:
Agreed, even though am/Fm is in decline, People STILL LOVE FM, there are some great indie college stations around. Which if i could listen to on my ipod i would. If every ipod had a tuner then people on campus could all listen, and experience the same thing. outside the station on campus they have speakers playing whats on air. People gather in the courtyard and socialize, at certain times probbably too. This could be a easy feature to add with big impact.
Also, :D , Perhaps the current iPod fm adapter will become the iStation/PodCaster? A light to signal on air, and others can tune in to hear your playlists or some type of browsing or podcast viewing emitted from the shuffle sized transmitter:rolleyes:
spicyapple
Nov 29, 01:40 PM
Maybe you can do video iChat sessions with an optional iSight camera right from the livingroom TV?
This reminds me of the old Zenith TVs with space phones where you could talk to a caller from the comfort of your sofa. (but voices usually sounded like it was underwater).
This reminds me of the old Zenith TVs with space phones where you could talk to a caller from the comfort of your sofa. (but voices usually sounded like it was underwater).
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.
rorschach
Apr 2, 04:29 AM
Thus far, stability-wise, it is not too bad for a beta. A lot of the UI rendering errors from beta 1 have been ironed out. My bet would be that this will be a $29 upgrade, as it doesn't add much but rather refines what 10.6 started.
Don't get your hopes up for that $29 upgrade. Lion has many more "major" features than SL did.
-Launchpad
-Full Screen apps
-Mission Control
-Auto Save
-Versions
-Resume
-AirDrop
-Full Disk Encryption
Plus there may be unannounced features that could be unveiled at WWDC or a media event before that. Stacks, Cover Flow, and Back To My Mac were announced well after Apple started seeding Leopard to devs.
Snow Leopard's "What's New" pages talks about text selection in PDFs and ejecting disks. :rolleyes:
I say it'll cost $99.
Don't get your hopes up for that $29 upgrade. Lion has many more "major" features than SL did.
-Launchpad
-Full Screen apps
-Mission Control
-Auto Save
-Versions
-Resume
-AirDrop
-Full Disk Encryption
Plus there may be unannounced features that could be unveiled at WWDC or a media event before that. Stacks, Cover Flow, and Back To My Mac were announced well after Apple started seeding Leopard to devs.
Snow Leopard's "What's New" pages talks about text selection in PDFs and ejecting disks. :rolleyes:
I say it'll cost $99.
JFreak
Jul 20, 05:05 AM
Reading this thread I realized that technical issues are not deal-breaker for many people -- it's still price that matters the most. If download-to-own costs $10, then everyone keeps demanding better specs for the material and it never ends. But if rental costs a buck a piece, then it's fun to watch and quality feels acceptable.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
It's all about money, guys. Like it or not.
HecubusPro
Sep 7, 01:17 PM
5. iPods screens are too small to watch full length movies on, and their disk space is too limited for movies (iPod nano outsells the video iPod)
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
A lot of thought went into your opinion, and it was a good read (I agree with a lot of it), but I have a slight problem with point 5. Not a big problem, just a slight one. :)
I have a 30GB iPod video, and I do enjoy watching movies and tv shows on it. I also have what I think is a ton of content on it (all 3 LOTR movies extended editions, 150 eps. of various Star Trek episodes, a couple of Star Trek movies, all 3 star wars movies, all 3 Indiana Jones movies, about 30 eps. of Kids in the Hall, Akira, a few episodes of Deadwood, 5 or 6 other movies [not pr0n :) ] and about 30 music videos) and I still have 8gigs of space left on the drive.
I have no problem watching movies on the small screen. I enjoy it, but that's my opinion. I find there's plenty of space on the drive for tons of content, but you may look at that and say that's not a lot.
I will however, very much look forward to a widescreen iPod video. I hope it comes out on the 12th, but I don't think it will. We'll see.
ampd
Aug 7, 07:52 AM
When apple releases new products are they normally ready to ship that day? Hopefully they won't need to charge my card right away until they ship it at a later date...I have no money but am still gonna buy a new expensive mac pro.... :confused:
itcheroni
Jul 20, 04:50 AM
Switching is happening, even with the negative, false, disinformation posts on this site. The numbers will bear this our in the upcoming quarters. Apple at $54, Google @ $455, hmmm I wonder what I should invest in???
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
You sound paranoid. Where are the negative, false, disinformative posts? It's the exact opposite here, people are so pro-Apple they can't think straight.
And, by the way, purchasing stocks based on price isn't very smart. I don't understand why you're singleling out Google just because it has a high stock price. It actually works against your point because it's a great stock-arguably better than Apple.
FoxyKaye
Jun 23, 12:00 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
Granted, there are some highly innovative aspects to iOS, and integrating some of these into a desktop computer OS would be beneficial.
But gods help us all of iOS and OS X merge at some point - as was pointed out on Slashdot just today, it would create a fully media DRM-locked, Apple-controlled application distribution center. Which would be very beneficial to Apple, but not so much to the consumer.
Although speculation that this will happen is rampant, as exemplified by the ARS Technica article today: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/developers-expect-ios-and-mac-os-to-merge-over-time.ars
In the meantime, it has been well over a year since either the XServe or Mac Pro have seen an update (despite charging through the roof for last year's technology), and Apple hasn't said anything about 10.7. That should be enough of an indicator right there.
*LTD*
Mar 25, 06:26 PM
This is cool to look at, but it's just a workaround for what should be happening... the Apple TV should run apps / play games. It's an iOS device. There's no need to get crazy with wires hanging off the side of an iPad.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
While I like seeing developers getting creative like this, I don't consider this mainstream gaming. An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
Play a great, touch-enabled version of Dead Space - pretty much a landmark in touch-based gaming, then quickly check your e-mail and then pay a bill through your banking app.
All from the same device. The iPad does a lot things, but it actually does them well. That's pretty significant.
islanders
Dec 30, 10:52 AM
I think a lot of you are expecting way too much on the "iTV" and will be very disappointed when it gets released.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
I would be only be disappointed if I purchased the device and it wasn�t up to my expectations.
If it has incredibly limited features and offers no value and no one buys it, I don�t care.
I have all those features in my living room right now. VOD, HD DVR, (which is the same thing as TiVo, as Comcast will be using a TiVo next year for the DVR)
Just because some of us are speculating on what we would be of value to us, HD, less commercials, a more useful bandwidth, doesn�t mean we are expecting to see any of this next week.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
I would be only be disappointed if I purchased the device and it wasn�t up to my expectations.
If it has incredibly limited features and offers no value and no one buys it, I don�t care.
I have all those features in my living room right now. VOD, HD DVR, (which is the same thing as TiVo, as Comcast will be using a TiVo next year for the DVR)
Just because some of us are speculating on what we would be of value to us, HD, less commercials, a more useful bandwidth, doesn�t mean we are expecting to see any of this next week.
Source URL: https://free1image.blogspot.com/2011/05/justin-bieber-phone-wallpaper-free.html
Visit free image for daily updated images of art collection
