milo
Jul 27, 10:57 AM
All of the reviews of the Core 2 Duo say that it crushes AMD in the desktop arena. This is good news, now we just need new iMacs, MacBook Pros, and Mac Pros.
And minis.
I'm guessing we get the towers at WWDC and probably meroms in the macbook. Most if not all the other models will get updates, but they can't do them all at once, I'd bet they'll follow up with separate announcements in a few weeks.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Well, duh. That's already pretty much been announced. Vista will be next year, and quad core intel chips are supposed to be out before the end of the year.
wasn't this announced last friday? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721145043.shtml)
Yeah. But today, it happened.
Does anyone know if the chips that are actually shipping are the same as the prototype chips?
YES! That's the whole point of a prototype.
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
You really need to read about this...these chips are just a little higher clock speed. But they have a 20%+ boost at the same clock speed. They ARE making better chip designs instead of just bumping clock speed. Intel/Apple is actually doing pretty much the opposite of what you accuse them of doing.
And minis.
I'm guessing we get the towers at WWDC and probably meroms in the macbook. Most if not all the other models will get updates, but they can't do them all at once, I'd bet they'll follow up with separate announcements in a few weeks.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Well, duh. That's already pretty much been announced. Vista will be next year, and quad core intel chips are supposed to be out before the end of the year.
wasn't this announced last friday? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721145043.shtml)
Yeah. But today, it happened.
Does anyone know if the chips that are actually shipping are the same as the prototype chips?
YES! That's the whole point of a prototype.
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
You really need to read about this...these chips are just a little higher clock speed. But they have a 20%+ boost at the same clock speed. They ARE making better chip designs instead of just bumping clock speed. Intel/Apple is actually doing pretty much the opposite of what you accuse them of doing.
phairphan
Aug 26, 04:19 PM
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
I believe the 2.33 GHz Merom chip debuted at the same price as the 2.16 GHz Yonah when it was released. The prices of MBPs certainly haven't fallen. Apple has just been enjoying the extra profits from Intel's price drops of the past few months.
Thor74
Apr 19, 02:21 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
I'm doing my fool dance right now...
We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine
I say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
And we can dance :D
I'm doing my fool dance right now...
We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine
I say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind
And we can dance :D
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:07 PM
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!
Mr Fusion
Mar 26, 01:33 AM
http://dissociatedpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/facebook-meh-button-500.png
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
raven13mb
Apr 5, 05:43 PM
Yeap, cause everything ends up on BluRay, no wait, it doesn't.
FCP is for editing, Motion is for graphics, Soundtrack Pro is for audio, Compressor is for encoding (even for BluRay) and Color is for grading.
If you need to author BluRay you use another tool.
Also there will be no training of the new software at NAB, why because NAB is almost over by Tuesday night. Most of the training will already have happened. And there is always a lot of training going on, there are classes to get certified, and certified instructors do not get advanced copies of the software.
Also I don't see Apple hijacking the SuperMeet, those guys would not screw all their long time sponsors for a one time apple thing. This event is huge, they have everything. Now there might be some re-shifting but as I said Tuesday is a long time to hold something through NAB. Apple used to have there own major event on Sunday mornings to unveil the newest FCP.
Nice post... I just wanted to add I always author Bluray using Final Cut. It might be bare-bones, but it does the job! 45 full length 2 hour long videos last year alone and not a single dissatisfied customer. It would be nice to do a little more in the way of authoring Blueray through Final Cut or DVDSP natively, but my only real hope is for 64 bit so the program can utilize the processing power of 8-core Macpros. I'm drooling over the idea of super-fast render times, exporting, etc. etc. etc.
HOPEFULLY they bundle and update for FCS for current registered pro users for $250 like the last release... which seems like an eternity ago!
FCP is for editing, Motion is for graphics, Soundtrack Pro is for audio, Compressor is for encoding (even for BluRay) and Color is for grading.
If you need to author BluRay you use another tool.
Also there will be no training of the new software at NAB, why because NAB is almost over by Tuesday night. Most of the training will already have happened. And there is always a lot of training going on, there are classes to get certified, and certified instructors do not get advanced copies of the software.
Also I don't see Apple hijacking the SuperMeet, those guys would not screw all their long time sponsors for a one time apple thing. This event is huge, they have everything. Now there might be some re-shifting but as I said Tuesday is a long time to hold something through NAB. Apple used to have there own major event on Sunday mornings to unveil the newest FCP.
Nice post... I just wanted to add I always author Bluray using Final Cut. It might be bare-bones, but it does the job! 45 full length 2 hour long videos last year alone and not a single dissatisfied customer. It would be nice to do a little more in the way of authoring Blueray through Final Cut or DVDSP natively, but my only real hope is for 64 bit so the program can utilize the processing power of 8-core Macpros. I'm drooling over the idea of super-fast render times, exporting, etc. etc. etc.
HOPEFULLY they bundle and update for FCS for current registered pro users for $250 like the last release... which seems like an eternity ago!
Macnoviz
Apr 12, 11:36 AM
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
well, if they were planning on doing a livestream, and all of the sudden they make it into a semi-stevenote, the extra traffic would probably kill the stream anyway
Lethal
well, if they were planning on doing a livestream, and all of the sudden they make it into a semi-stevenote, the extra traffic would probably kill the stream anyway
Nuck81
Dec 11, 12:31 PM
Got a DFGT yesterday.
I totally suck right now, I'm about six seconds off my usual lap times, but it takes the game to a completely new level. I really can't believe it has taken me this long to get a good wheel.
My future father in law is a custom carpenter and he is going to build me a mounting stand for my wheel. I'll post some pics when he gets it done.
If you get the opportunity, don't miss out on snagging yourself a wheel!!!
I totally suck right now, I'm about six seconds off my usual lap times, but it takes the game to a completely new level. I really can't believe it has taken me this long to get a good wheel.
My future father in law is a custom carpenter and he is going to build me a mounting stand for my wheel. I'll post some pics when he gets it done.
If you get the opportunity, don't miss out on snagging yourself a wheel!!!
ddekker
Oct 22, 01:21 PM
I heard Leo Laporte talking about this on his KFI podcast... exciting... one question... how many softwares take advantage of multi cores? I understand that the OS can deal with it for multi tasking, but how many programs multi thread?
DD
DD
mrsir2009
Apr 19, 02:47 PM
Hey leave Samsung alone! They're my favorite tech company after Apple :)
twoodcc
Aug 13, 10:36 PM
You originally said...
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
well i did have demos just before that quote. but yes, what i meant to say, and what i actually typed, was two different things. but i think you can see what i was trying to say, and is clear: NFS has sold more, but has more games out there.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
math is fun, and yes, per year, NFS has sold more. but they released more games to do it. and on more consoles, to break it down even further
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
did you buy GT5: prologue?
for someone who at one point really liked the games/series, i don't see why you wouldn't give this game a shot, at least after reading reviews first. i find it very frustrating to see people make judgements before the game is even out
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
no matter what anyone says, it is a fact that they intended to build a car specifically for Gran Turismo. that in itself is very impressive to me.
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
i never said that the most sold game is the greatest. but i do think sales is one aspect to consider.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
i understand this, but i don't think you understand what i am trying to point out. you are correct in that what makes something great is personal preference, and when many people have that same personal preference, it turns into many sales.
let's try this analogy. take tennis for example. who is a "greater" player - Roger Federer or Andy Roddick? Roddick has played some great games, and has a great serve, but Federer has many more championships. almost everyone would say Federer is greater (if there is such a term).
think of championships as sales in this case. i know it's not the best analogy, but the first thing i could think of.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
you do make a very good point here, but again, i think you are taking my point out of context.
my whole point in all of this, is not that i think GT is the greatest series of all time or whatever, or that they have sold the most, blah blah. all i'm trying to say is that they have a very respectable racing series, one of the best, and i think this next game will continue their success. and i pointed out that past sales show that they have had much success. that's all i'm really saying here
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
it seems we are arguing just to argue. i hope you at least read some reviews once the game is out before making a choice like that. and i also hope that this thread hasn't led you to that decision
It's refreshing that I don't have to go to gamespot forums to see a pointless immature fanboy pissing match :rolleyes:
sorry for the inconvenience. you don't have to read this you know.
charlituna
Apr 6, 08:22 PM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I took a look at the post and while I think your ideas are well thought out and very 'Apple' there are a few points that I disagree with.
First off the notion that Apple has to match QuickTime on Windows and Mac. I don't see that they do so I won't be shocked if they don't. Or they might do another QT Pro (but i doubt they would let you use your old QT7 key)
Also on the whole timeline issue. I don't see it as Apple changing one for the other. What I see is the user having a choice. They did this in iMovie so why not in FCS. Let folks work the way they feel is most efficient whether that is single line, flowchart etc. Same with how some of the tools function. Leave the old way and add the new one. Maybe both on the screen or perhaps a preference that allows you to use 'classic tools'.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of them adding Aperture to the package, but I agree that they could and should have some kind of catalog program or mode. Something that could perhaps bridge the components and even perhaps output from other programs like Premiere, Maya etc even Logic Studio. It might even allow for importing and logging without having to open Final Cut and allow you to put in Meta data like location, names of people in shot, etc. Stuff that would make that iMovie People Search etc viable tools.
And while I like the idea of a plugin store I'm not sure it would be separate from the Mac App Store, particularly if this version of FCS required at least Snow Leo. even if it was its own face I could definitely see Apple putting it into that pay system.
And one thing you didn't mention that I think is plausible is incorporating FCServer into the set rather than as a stand alone sku. Perhaps not within the programs but put that disk in the box as well. if Lion is any example, Apple seems to be getting away from separating Server functionality and having that software in the box as well could help those on the fence about switching. Especially if the whole thing was no more that the current $999 (a little less would be even better)
dwayne johnson tattoo,
Dwayne Johnson Tattoo
dwayne the rock johnson tattoo
Dwayne Johnson, a massive
Dwayne Johnson Tattoo
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson Tattoos
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I took a look at the post and while I think your ideas are well thought out and very 'Apple' there are a few points that I disagree with.
First off the notion that Apple has to match QuickTime on Windows and Mac. I don't see that they do so I won't be shocked if they don't. Or they might do another QT Pro (but i doubt they would let you use your old QT7 key)
Also on the whole timeline issue. I don't see it as Apple changing one for the other. What I see is the user having a choice. They did this in iMovie so why not in FCS. Let folks work the way they feel is most efficient whether that is single line, flowchart etc. Same with how some of the tools function. Leave the old way and add the new one. Maybe both on the screen or perhaps a preference that allows you to use 'classic tools'.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of them adding Aperture to the package, but I agree that they could and should have some kind of catalog program or mode. Something that could perhaps bridge the components and even perhaps output from other programs like Premiere, Maya etc even Logic Studio. It might even allow for importing and logging without having to open Final Cut and allow you to put in Meta data like location, names of people in shot, etc. Stuff that would make that iMovie People Search etc viable tools.
And while I like the idea of a plugin store I'm not sure it would be separate from the Mac App Store, particularly if this version of FCS required at least Snow Leo. even if it was its own face I could definitely see Apple putting it into that pay system.
And one thing you didn't mention that I think is plausible is incorporating FCServer into the set rather than as a stand alone sku. Perhaps not within the programs but put that disk in the box as well. if Lion is any example, Apple seems to be getting away from separating Server functionality and having that software in the box as well could help those on the fence about switching. Especially if the whole thing was no more that the current $999 (a little less would be even better)
tk421
Nov 29, 01:38 PM
Not true. Apple doesn't need the iTunes Store since all iPods are full of stolen music! ;)
No kidding! Hasn't Apple done enough to promote legal music purchases?
No kidding! Hasn't Apple done enough to promote legal music purchases?
skunk
Apr 28, 09:32 AM
Sad, pathetic, misguided, and further proof that this forum has a distinct in ability to produce meaningful conversation without hate, vitriol, and meaninglessly misguided attacks. Enjoy.Are you leaving so soon? :(
samh004
Nov 28, 07:14 PM
I was under the assumption that the money paid to Universal was to allow the streaming of music from one device to another. I assumed that was the real reason behind the payment.
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
gugy
Aug 11, 02:47 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
maclaptop
Apr 19, 08:02 PM
You're missing the point. It's more fun to come to an Apple rumors site and irrationally bait the residents into irrationally baiting you into irrationally...well, you get the point. :rolleyes:
This post is the best I've read in ages. Well Done.
Simply Exemplary :)
This post is the best I've read in ages. Well Done.
Simply Exemplary :)
louden
Aug 27, 06:36 PM
IF new MBPs are announced tomorrow
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
and
IF people who had ordered new MBPs see their ship dates slip
Then wouldn't that signal that prices won't change for the various models from existing prices AND that we shouldn't assume drastic shell changes? Sure they can give us easy access and a magnetic lid, but no options on a glossy screen and no black anodized aluminum.
If I were Apple, I'd hold off on the black aluminum for a few months to get a few of us suckers to buy two of the damn things... Malibu Stacy Marketing 101.
Gugulino
Apr 6, 04:17 AM
Looking for some controversy are we?!!! :rolleyes:
No, I really think that iMovie is a good example of video-editing software. Did Apple changed FCP's look and feel in the last few years? No! It is outdated, that you have to admit for sure. iMovie has a far more modern UI, which should be adopted by FCP somehow. I didn't mean FCP should lose all its Pro-features. FCP could also adopt the easy way of handling your footage: In iMovie I see what I shot and can quickly add clips to the project without setting in and out points manually. And what about the precision-editor? For one project I abandoned FCP just because it has no precision editor.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
No, I really think that iMovie is a good example of video-editing software. Did Apple changed FCP's look and feel in the last few years? No! It is outdated, that you have to admit for sure. iMovie has a far more modern UI, which should be adopted by FCP somehow. I didn't mean FCP should lose all its Pro-features. FCP could also adopt the easy way of handling your footage: In iMovie I see what I shot and can quickly add clips to the project without setting in and out points manually. And what about the precision-editor? For one project I abandoned FCP just because it has no precision editor.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
rosalindavenue
Mar 31, 03:18 PM
Not a problem for me. HTC does a great job keeping phones updated.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
Spoken like someone who never owned an Eris.
nonameowns
Apr 6, 02:59 PM
ahem
the people want a ipad, not a tablet.
same when they want a ipod, not a mp3 player.
Basic marketing there folks.
the people want a ipad, not a tablet.
same when they want a ipod, not a mp3 player.
Basic marketing there folks.
padr�
Sep 19, 12:39 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.