whooleytoo
Jun 28, 01:14 PM
I'm just going to throw this very quick (and shoddy) rendering I made into the mix, portraying a possible "tabletop" iMac.
http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq257/Ryuinfinity/imactouch.png
That looks great, and would be fine for touch-input (if it has wrist-wrests); but that's a horrible angle for a screen: you'd have to crouch over it to use it. Fine for very short usage, but would be incredibly uncomfortable for any kind of regular use.
There's a simple, fundamental problem with combining touch-input and a screen into one surface in desktop computer, and no amount of clever design can get around it:
The ideal touch device is near-horizontal. The ideal screen is near-vertical. Unless/until we evolve a convoluted spine or an extra arm joint, you cannot combine both into one surface, without having a horribly uncomfortable user experience.
The iDevices work because they can be held in one hand and adjusted. I wouldn't want to try that with an iMac!
The only way I can see anything like this happening, is if this new iMac is more of a dockable "iPad". Sit it into the dock and you use it as an iMac with full OSX functionality. Pull it out and take it with you, and it's a (slightly heavy!) iPad.
Now that I think about it, that might be pretty cool. No need to sync your Mac and your iPad, they're the same device!
http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq257/Ryuinfinity/imactouch.png
That looks great, and would be fine for touch-input (if it has wrist-wrests); but that's a horrible angle for a screen: you'd have to crouch over it to use it. Fine for very short usage, but would be incredibly uncomfortable for any kind of regular use.
There's a simple, fundamental problem with combining touch-input and a screen into one surface in desktop computer, and no amount of clever design can get around it:
The ideal touch device is near-horizontal. The ideal screen is near-vertical. Unless/until we evolve a convoluted spine or an extra arm joint, you cannot combine both into one surface, without having a horribly uncomfortable user experience.
The iDevices work because they can be held in one hand and adjusted. I wouldn't want to try that with an iMac!
The only way I can see anything like this happening, is if this new iMac is more of a dockable "iPad". Sit it into the dock and you use it as an iMac with full OSX functionality. Pull it out and take it with you, and it's a (slightly heavy!) iPad.
Now that I think about it, that might be pretty cool. No need to sync your Mac and your iPad, they're the same device!
GGJstudios
Nov 23, 07:17 PM
^ Uhm. Popularity does not imply quality.
Neither does obscurity. However, success in the music industry is generally measured by how many people like a musician's work. Ask any musician whether they'd rather create music that appeals to 4 people, or 40,000,000 people. :rolleyes: Your individual lack of appreciation of The Beatles doesn't diminish their success, collectively and individually. To discount their accomplishments and influence is to display monumental naivet�.
Neither does obscurity. However, success in the music industry is generally measured by how many people like a musician's work. Ask any musician whether they'd rather create music that appeals to 4 people, or 40,000,000 people. :rolleyes: Your individual lack of appreciation of The Beatles doesn't diminish their success, collectively and individually. To discount their accomplishments and influence is to display monumental naivet�.
ModestPenguin
Aug 2, 04:20 PM
Dirty whiney windows users messing with our macs.
Back off.
Back off.
Hastings101
May 5, 06:58 PM
Because it's a ridiculous feature that only retards, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's cool, want, but the rest of us who will never use it (or even go out of their way to avoid it) will pay for.
The human brain is capable of decoding depth out of an image using a myriad of other clues (such as occlusion) and the use of the stereoscopic effect is, in my opinion, overrated. It just results in blurred or jarred motion and a crap viewing experience.
Just because you might find 3D fun doesn't make you "brainwashed". In fact... because you seem to be so anti-3D... you might be the one that is brainwashed :eek:
The human brain is capable of decoding depth out of an image using a myriad of other clues (such as occlusion) and the use of the stereoscopic effect is, in my opinion, overrated. It just results in blurred or jarred motion and a crap viewing experience.
Just because you might find 3D fun doesn't make you "brainwashed". In fact... because you seem to be so anti-3D... you might be the one that is brainwashed :eek:
skunk
Apr 12, 01:49 PM
For example, Skunk if very consistent in his proposition that the Bible is a revisionist book written by man with a specific human agenda in mind. In many discussions I've seen him post comments about the polytheistic history of the Canaanite people. That's one of his key points and he will continue to say so as he feels it is an important piece of evidence for his view.Would you argue that the Canaanites were not polytheistic?
Would you argue that the Hebrews were not Canaanites themselves?
Would you argue that the true polytheistic beliefs of contemporary Canaanites were not described in the Old Testament?
Would you argue that Israelite and Judaean leaders did not name their sons after El, chief god of the Canaanites?
Would you argue that the prophets were not continually bemoaning the polytheism of their people?
Would you argue that the "War in Heaven" was not the point at which the polytheism of Israel and Judah was transformed into monotheism, when El defeated the other gods and cast them out of heaven?
Would you argue that the angels were not the defeated lesser gods of the pantheon, retaining their memories of godhood in their -el suffixes?
Would you argue that Satan is not the same as Baal/Beelzebub?
Would you argue that the Hebrews were not Canaanites themselves?
Would you argue that the true polytheistic beliefs of contemporary Canaanites were not described in the Old Testament?
Would you argue that Israelite and Judaean leaders did not name their sons after El, chief god of the Canaanites?
Would you argue that the prophets were not continually bemoaning the polytheism of their people?
Would you argue that the "War in Heaven" was not the point at which the polytheism of Israel and Judah was transformed into monotheism, when El defeated the other gods and cast them out of heaven?
Would you argue that the angels were not the defeated lesser gods of the pantheon, retaining their memories of godhood in their -el suffixes?
Would you argue that Satan is not the same as Baal/Beelzebub?
-=XX=-Nephilim
Nov 3, 04:10 AM
Apple should take finger out of their back parts asap!
Very soon indeed it might turn out to be too late...
Very soon indeed it might turn out to be too late...
xsedrinam
Sep 22, 07:33 PM
So, hypothetically, what if Wal-Mart's CEO doesn't "moderate" their stance, and Apple ink deals with more than Disney including Library titles? Surely Wal-Mart's bean counters and legal eagles have already played the war games scenarios. Who would be the winners if this ratcheted up to another level?
MikeTheC
Aug 30, 10:50 PM
Back on topic...
I don't know why people are going on and on about the $400 price for Windows Vista Ultimate version. That's a retail price, just like the $300 retail price for windows XP. Only an idiot would buy a retail version of windows when you can get the same full install (not an upgrade) oem version for a fraction of that price.
A retail version of Windows XP professional SP2 is $300 at compUSA and the OEM of XP pro SP2 is $130 at my local PC parts store.
Retail pricing isn't even worth discussing unless Microsoft decides to end oem sales of windows.
Of course, that also assumes that the average person walking into a major retailer would or could know that little bit of info.
Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista. I'm not a gamer, I neither develop in or have a need to use apps built in VB or MSAccess. I no longer work for Sony supporting PCs running Windows, and so frankly I have no need for anything other than a Mac.
And frankly if I ever decided to get into gaming (not impossible, but highly doubtful) I'd probably just get a gaming console and hook it up to my LCD panel.
I don't know why people are going on and on about the $400 price for Windows Vista Ultimate version. That's a retail price, just like the $300 retail price for windows XP. Only an idiot would buy a retail version of windows when you can get the same full install (not an upgrade) oem version for a fraction of that price.
A retail version of Windows XP professional SP2 is $300 at compUSA and the OEM of XP pro SP2 is $130 at my local PC parts store.
Retail pricing isn't even worth discussing unless Microsoft decides to end oem sales of windows.
Of course, that also assumes that the average person walking into a major retailer would or could know that little bit of info.
Personally, I have no plans whatsoever to buy Vista. I'm not a gamer, I neither develop in or have a need to use apps built in VB or MSAccess. I no longer work for Sony supporting PCs running Windows, and so frankly I have no need for anything other than a Mac.
And frankly if I ever decided to get into gaming (not impossible, but highly doubtful) I'd probably just get a gaming console and hook it up to my LCD panel.
epb87
Mar 6, 06:49 PM
Where is this?!?!!? Awesome shot!
Amazing! How close where you? what lens are you shooting with?
My photo for today...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5501494819_983243de4e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5501494819/)
I feel like I must visit Vancouver and Canada in general, as I see so many great photos in this thread from here.
Amazing! How close where you? what lens are you shooting with?
My photo for today...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5501494819_983243de4e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5501494819/)
I feel like I must visit Vancouver and Canada in general, as I see so many great photos in this thread from here.
Yinmay
Jun 24, 06:37 PM
I'm sure the next major update (as major as 9.0 --> OS X) will have a new naming scheme. "Eleven" does not lend itself well to marketing unless Spinal Tap's your thing.
How bout "OSean's Eleven" ;)
How bout "OSean's Eleven" ;)
ppc_michael
Apr 11, 01:31 PM
If they had any talent to begin with, they'd be making enough money with the tool where the cost of it would be meaningless anyway. ;)
You must be new to the creative field. ;)
You must be new to the creative field. ;)
hob
Aug 24, 04:28 PM
MY GOD
I just woke up from a nap and have at least a DOZEN e-mails from PC-owning friends and famailies saying stuff like "What's up with your boys?!?!?!"
I kindly link them to the 4.1 million Dell's being recalled. :D
My girlfriend is having a field-day. Being a Dell fan-girl, I was like nyahhhh your laptop's gonna explode.
Now she's getting her own back (http://www.thehobsite.com/blog/?p=258) :(
I just woke up from a nap and have at least a DOZEN e-mails from PC-owning friends and famailies saying stuff like "What's up with your boys?!?!?!"
I kindly link them to the 4.1 million Dell's being recalled. :D
My girlfriend is having a field-day. Being a Dell fan-girl, I was like nyahhhh your laptop's gonna explode.
Now she's getting her own back (http://www.thehobsite.com/blog/?p=258) :(
Nipsy
Oct 13, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Well, wow. How uneducated you are.
Thanks!
You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.
Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.
Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.
.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.
Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.
Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.
No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.
The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...
Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.
The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.
In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.
Windows will take you through a great help tour in order to tell you it can't help you.
Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.
I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.
Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine.
I will happily concede that RAM and system spec can make all the difference here, and that Windows will run on a broader base of machines.
My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.
It is as responsive it can be.
Love Wallpapers For Desktop
If you are a Mac lover,
Love Christian Wallpaper for
wallpaper desktop background
love wallpapers for desktop
Day desktop wallpapers
Well, wow. How uneducated you are.
Thanks!
You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.
Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.
Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.
.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.
Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.
Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.
No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.
The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...
Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.
The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.
In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.
Windows will take you through a great help tour in order to tell you it can't help you.
Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.
I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.
Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine.
I will happily concede that RAM and system spec can make all the difference here, and that Windows will run on a broader base of machines.
My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.
It is as responsive it can be.
NoStopN
Mar 21, 10:24 PM
That's hilarious. I needed that to clean off the rotten day I had. At least my day wasn't ruined by anything from Apple.
cobalt79
Mar 12, 08:16 AM
"Check and mate?"
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/lmao-new.jpg
Touch�
This is the classic response of the mac forum member who wants to act too cool to care that someone, in fact, proved them wrong.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/lmao-new.jpg
Touch�
This is the classic response of the mac forum member who wants to act too cool to care that someone, in fact, proved them wrong.
Chundles
Aug 4, 01:53 AM
Name two things not on that banner? iSight and Cinema display. :D
iPod
iSight
Cinema Display
DVI -> VGA adapter
#3 Universal Dock insert
iPod
iSight
Cinema Display
DVI -> VGA adapter
#3 Universal Dock insert
gri
Mar 22, 11:18 AM
Your wife said 'no'?
You know, this is a question that I've been wanting to ask for a long time, and this is not directed only at you, but to all responses similar to yours I've seen on such topics. It's an honest question I have, because it just blows my mind:
[...]
This is honestly something that Id like an answer to. Some of you seem to have a 'child/parent' relationship, instead of husband/wife. If she's the breadwinner of the house, and you mooch of her, fine I'd understand. But if you bring in the $$? Sounds like a disturbing and cold relationship. Why does she get to dominate you and dictate your decisions, void of any debate or discussion?
If you have shared responsibilities e.g. to send the kids to school (not realy cheap where I am), which takes a consierablen slap out of the salary, certain purchases might not be considered really important/essential for the family's well-being by the significant other (compared to lets sayspending the money for new clothes for the kid or a family trip). I still do it but tell her after the fact with a good justification (if possible). Works most of the time (and I am screwed if it doesn't).
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
You know, this is a question that I've been wanting to ask for a long time, and this is not directed only at you, but to all responses similar to yours I've seen on such topics. It's an honest question I have, because it just blows my mind:
[...]
This is honestly something that Id like an answer to. Some of you seem to have a 'child/parent' relationship, instead of husband/wife. If she's the breadwinner of the house, and you mooch of her, fine I'd understand. But if you bring in the $$? Sounds like a disturbing and cold relationship. Why does she get to dominate you and dictate your decisions, void of any debate or discussion?
If you have shared responsibilities e.g. to send the kids to school (not realy cheap where I am), which takes a consierablen slap out of the salary, certain purchases might not be considered really important/essential for the family's well-being by the significant other (compared to lets sayspending the money for new clothes for the kid or a family trip). I still do it but tell her after the fact with a good justification (if possible). Works most of the time (and I am screwed if it doesn't).
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
thworple
Nov 8, 06:28 AM
or is there more expected from the update....like the true ipod video?
Can't see that happening - there would be a BIG fuss made over that, with Steve giving a keynote about it , and some "big at the moment" music act doing a live performance at the end.
Can't see that happening - there would be a BIG fuss made over that, with Steve giving a keynote about it , and some "big at the moment" music act doing a live performance at the end.
dumptruck
Mar 12, 05:55 AM
And Swedish.... Come on!
trekkie604
Oct 14, 01:45 AM
Is it that obvious? :P
Haha It's our year I tell ya!
I hear the parade route is already planned :p
Haha It's our year I tell ya!
I hear the parade route is already planned :p
Roba
Sep 12, 02:21 PM
I am pleased to see these colour iPods back. I have a 6GB Mini and i would have liked Apple to have made maybe a 6GB or 8GB Nano in different colours. If i get one of these new Nanos it would feel like a bit of a downgrade to me in terms of space. I guess that i would be gaining in other areas though. I do suspect though that Apple will up the hard drive capacity on these colour Nanos in the future.
It is a bit strange they way that they have done this though making all the colour ones 4GB and the 8GB the black one only.
I noticed also that they only support 10.3.9 and up all those who are using older Mac Software are going to face a bit of a problem if they want to buy one of these new Nanos.
It is a bit strange they way that they have done this though making all the colour ones 4GB and the 8GB the black one only.
I noticed also that they only support 10.3.9 and up all those who are using older Mac Software are going to face a bit of a problem if they want to buy one of these new Nanos.
mgguy
Mar 28, 11:30 PM
Haven't heard much from Obama about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS lately ...
princealfie
Nov 29, 01:32 PM
They should use the new LOVE mix of Tomorrow Never Knows with Within You Without You. The drumming is so cool and it would attract so much attention since although so many have heard the two separate songs, hearing the Mashup of the two is quite stunning and very modern. You should check it out if you have not yet. Amazing sound. Especially in 5.1
That album is completely lame. I was bored to tears listening to it on the Virgie magastore booth...
This is the best Beatles album period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album
Enough Jay-Z meets the Beatles is way more creative. Someday Applecorps will need to release this.
That album is completely lame. I was bored to tears listening to it on the Virgie magastore booth...
This is the best Beatles album period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album
Enough Jay-Z meets the Beatles is way more creative. Someday Applecorps will need to release this.
gri
Mar 21, 02:51 PM
Ah well, Apple'll probably make back up the cost of that iPad through the apps that guy will buy in the app store on his iPad and on his Mac.
...if his wife lets him do that...
...if his wife lets him do that...
No comments:
Post a Comment