mrkramer
Jan 13, 01:52 AM
this is crap,
no one in their right mind would make something with 0 ports, you have to at a bare minimum have an audio out.
I agree that it probably won't have no ports, I think it will at least have 1 USB and 1 Firewire, but other than that everything could be done wirelessly, and if Apple wants to make the notebook thinner than the ports are then they may use their patent for collapsible ports that they made a while back.
no one in their right mind would make something with 0 ports, you have to at a bare minimum have an audio out.
I agree that it probably won't have no ports, I think it will at least have 1 USB and 1 Firewire, but other than that everything could be done wirelessly, and if Apple wants to make the notebook thinner than the ports are then they may use their patent for collapsible ports that they made a while back.
DrFrankTM
Aug 25, 09:23 AM
am I right in thinking that there is still no way to do extended desktop (two monitors displaying different stuff) on a Mini?
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
Hmmm... To cook an extended desktop on a Mini (sort of), you need:
1-) A Mac Mini
2-) An old Mac with a screen - mine is an old iBook G3
3-) A router
4-) Synergy
5-) Some kind of script - Automator does the job - to turn Synergy into a start-up item on both computers
Ok, it obviously doesn't give you two screens on your Mini, but you can cut and paste between screens, and use only one keyboard and mouse to control both, which is pretty sweet. Personally, I use my Mini for any kind of heavy workloads and the iBook for the small stuff. The lack of extended desktop was almost a show-stopper for me but, in the end, Synergy provides me with all the screen space I need. If you really need more than that though, maybe the Mini isn't the right machine.
EDIT: For example, I run Skype on my iBook. There is no difference whatsoever to me whether it is on my iBook or my Mini. You can use the secondary screen for a bunch of apps like those that do not really need to run on your Mini.
mrapplegate
Apr 3, 01:52 PM
I am still really surprised that it seems as if nobody else has had the greyed-out toolbar in fullscreen Safari bug that I've got. Has anyone heard or read something that I haven't? I am much more looking forward to the next preview/beta build now, it suffices to say. ;)
Mine auto-hides as normal. I would file a bug report.
Mine auto-hides as normal. I would file a bug report.
donlphi
Nov 29, 02:05 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
theBigD23
May 2, 07:01 PM
I feel the same way. I just want to delete an app that delete all of the junk that comes with it. Just moving it to e trash does not do that. Some programs have an uninstall and some don't. That's more confusing for people.
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
macmax77
Nov 29, 09:08 PM
They own a good portion of apple if I'm not wrong....
Rihanna#39;s coal back hair
Rihanna cool short hairstyle
Short Haircut On Rihanna
rihanna short hair.
blonde highlights short black
2011,rihanna short hair
rihanna short hair.
Rihanna short haircuts for
rihanna pixie cut short hair
Cool Hair Styles | Rihanna#39;s
Cool Hair Styles | Rihanna
short hair
Rihanna#39;s chic short hairstyle
Donnacha
Nov 27, 05:05 PM
*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
twoodcc
Nov 15, 10:48 AM
congrats to mc68k for 7 million!
xUKHCx
Jan 11, 04:55 PM
Leads nicely on from "There's Something in the Air" (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=412600).
If you ask me it is not a very good name.
If you ask me it is not a very good name.
aswitcher
Sep 4, 10:40 PM
Would something in this realm be feasible for the mini updates? Just wondering while waiting for updates. Of course this is very vague on my part.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
I will be surprised if the Solo continues. Duo across the line, even C2D, would be a nice milestone and there shouldn't be a lot of money difference.
bellman
Apr 20, 06:02 AM
So what are we looking at? 1-2 weeks?:cool:
Tonsko
Jan 7, 04:14 AM
weyhay, another R32 owner! But yeh. Petrol is a killer.
chutch15
Sep 12, 05:59 PM
I got Night Sky (very dark blue).
cmustin
Nov 25, 09:30 AM
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Any Army surplus store will carry it.
Any Army surplus store will carry it.
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
So are there any live updates?
follow @fcpsupermeet on twitter for updates. They are running through the history of Final Cut and moving into the new version.
follow @fcpsupermeet on twitter for updates. They are running through the history of Final Cut and moving into the new version.
kresh
Jul 19, 07:38 PM
Wow. I still can't get used to the positive press coming from dedicated PC sources.
Lance Ulanoff is predicting Apple to sell more notebooks than Gateway by the end of 2006 and give Dell a run for the money.
link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1990674,00.asp
Wowee. I love it!
edit: spelling
Lance Ulanoff is predicting Apple to sell more notebooks than Gateway by the end of 2006 and give Dell a run for the money.
link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1990674,00.asp
Wowee. I love it!
edit: spelling
reflex
Aug 25, 01:51 PM
And Apple doesn't like to be selling historical artifacts any longer than they must
So that's why they stuck with G3s in iBooks for so long? :p
So that's why they stuck with G3s in iBooks for so long? :p
takao
Mar 31, 02:46 PM
To say any one country defeated the nazis really isn't true. It's as unreasonable a claim as rasmasyean's wargasmic fantasy :p
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa ...
which brings us back to the original topic: guess what happened 70 years ago in March: the german Afrika Korps and Luftwaffe started their operations in Libya. .. and some people wonder why the germans didn't want to supply troops planes for fighting in Libya.
Dropping "Happy 70th Anniversary" bombs would have been too absurd
Yeah, you're right. The UK had their entire coast surrounded by radars because they wanted to predict incomming hurricanes in some historically massive secret weather program.
ironically the british thought that they were so far ahead in radar technology/knowledge that it did cost the RAF heavily when bombing germany at night: to counter german interceptors they put a tail radar device into their bombers and at one point losses icnreased ... because it never crossed their minds that the germans simply can put a device on their night interceptors to triangulated those radar signals... which made them even easier to find ... and it took the RAF months to realize that and take them off the planes
and after that they introduced radar jammers to counter german radar.. only to be countered again with the german nigth fighters deploying homeing devices for the RAF radar jammers
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa ...
which brings us back to the original topic: guess what happened 70 years ago in March: the german Afrika Korps and Luftwaffe started their operations in Libya. .. and some people wonder why the germans didn't want to supply troops planes for fighting in Libya.
Dropping "Happy 70th Anniversary" bombs would have been too absurd
Yeah, you're right. The UK had their entire coast surrounded by radars because they wanted to predict incomming hurricanes in some historically massive secret weather program.
ironically the british thought that they were so far ahead in radar technology/knowledge that it did cost the RAF heavily when bombing germany at night: to counter german interceptors they put a tail radar device into their bombers and at one point losses icnreased ... because it never crossed their minds that the germans simply can put a device on their night interceptors to triangulated those radar signals... which made them even easier to find ... and it took the RAF months to realize that and take them off the planes
and after that they introduced radar jammers to counter german radar.. only to be countered again with the german nigth fighters deploying homeing devices for the RAF radar jammers
foodle
Mar 25, 06:40 PM
An iPad 2 is $500. A PlayStation 3 is much cheaper.
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
But remember that the PS3 was $600 at launch, but is $300 now. Each PS3 game is $60, while Real Racing 2 is $7. So the cost proposition after a few games is not that different.
skunk
Mar 19, 02:56 PM
yet again it goes back to who has AWACS which yet again is the US.The French and British also have AWACS capabilities.
Applespider
Jul 19, 04:39 PM
Wow, already up to 75% intel machines. So much for the stupid notion that nobody wants intel because there are still big apps that aren't universal.
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels which given that most of the Macs are Intels, isn't that surprising.
The OS X install base has around 940,000 Intel users and several million PPC users
No, 75% of Macs sold in the last 3 months were Intels which given that most of the Macs are Intels, isn't that surprising.
The OS X install base has around 940,000 Intel users and several million PPC users
Cat-toy
Sep 14, 10:45 PM
The BB I got my Griffin case from also had a couple other griffin gloss ones of hard plastic in bright blue, black - although it was more smoke/gray, and I forget, one other color. You can check stock on bestbuy.com search for ipod 4th and it'll come up with a few cases and etc for it. then do check store inventory. good luck!
Thanks!
Says it's available, but from working in retail in the past in a store with online checking of stock I know that what is listed as "available" is not always accurate. But I will walk over there tomorrow and check it out, not far to go anyhow. :)
Thanks!
Says it's available, but from working in retail in the past in a store with online checking of stock I know that what is listed as "available" is not always accurate. But I will walk over there tomorrow and check it out, not far to go anyhow. :)
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:08 PM
Wow, looks pretty awesome. Nothing about improved typography though? Booooo.
Or will there be a 'studio' anymore? Will motion and livetype just be part of the new FCX?
Or will there be a 'studio' anymore? Will motion and livetype just be part of the new FCX?
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 26, 12:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
How can it be generic if no one had one before apple created there's? Suddenly everyone calls their market place an app store. There've been digital stores for years, and none were app stores.
No comments:
Post a Comment