Bodypainter
May 3, 04:30 AM
I have a question. If u delete an App that way does it mean its completely gone, i mean under windows if you delete something you still find lots of folders related to the deleted program somewhere in the WINDOWS folder. I am not a Mac specialist so I am wondering, and is this the same when moving an app to the trash ...
first of all: this way of deleting programs will only work with programs you bought at the app store.
second: a program file is often a folder that has lots of other files inside. but it is locked and hidden in front of the user. so when you delete a program file in most cases you delete a lot more files. You can check this yourself by going into the program folder, right click and select "show package content".
first of all: this way of deleting programs will only work with programs you bought at the app store.
second: a program file is often a folder that has lots of other files inside. but it is locked and hidden in front of the user. so when you delete a program file in most cases you delete a lot more files. You can check this yourself by going into the program folder, right click and select "show package content".
kepner
Mar 31, 02:13 AM
Launchpad is now an app in the Applications folder, and can be removed from the Dock.
Is frontrow back?
No, and they removed the mention of it from the Sound prefpane. ("Play Front Row sound effects")
Is frontrow back?
No, and they removed the mention of it from the Sound prefpane. ("Play Front Row sound effects")
FFTT
Nov 25, 04:06 PM
Those slow old Core Duo minis put my $2700 Beige G3 tower to shame.
gnasher729
Nov 18, 10:09 AM
It depends on what the program does. Some programs don't lend themselves to multi-threading at all and others practically require it. It can be quite a chore to go back and multi-thread an existing program.
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.
Also, some uses of a program make it easy to use multithreading, and others don't. As an example, if you use Handbrake to do H.264 encoding, it is work for the developers to use multiple cores (it has been posted here that it uses three cores) for encoding a single movie, but it would be absolutely easy to use four times as many cores to encode four movies simultaneously.
Something like that would be perfect if you want to encode four half hour movies, but awful if you want to encode a single two hour movie.
faroZ06
Apr 3, 01:31 AM
Agreed. Those ads killed my ability to defend Apple fandom by saying the snooty arrogance is just some peoples baseless perception.
Embarrassing.
There's an app for that was kinda good.
But if you don't have an iPhone, you can't do this? It just makes it look like a useless device.
Actually, I'm perfectly happy without any Apple stuff besides my iMac. I didn't have an iPod until a week ago, so I was using some tape player for music :D mainly because I didn't care enough about randomly listening to music to buy an iPod.
Embarrassing.
There's an app for that was kinda good.
But if you don't have an iPhone, you can't do this? It just makes it look like a useless device.
Actually, I'm perfectly happy without any Apple stuff besides my iMac. I didn't have an iPod until a week ago, so I was using some tape player for music :D mainly because I didn't care enough about randomly listening to music to buy an iPod.
firestarter
Mar 20, 06:03 PM
And like I said, they dont have to be worried because homeopathy is not directly harmful to people. Ex-gay therapy is. This is not just an app based on christianity. Exodus International is an organization dedicated specifically to ex-gay therapy.
Maybe Apple should ban all religious apps.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
Maybe Apple should ban all religious apps.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
quadgirl
Sep 1, 02:04 PM
Merom is 64 bit enabled, IIRC
So is Conroe
So is Conroe
Nishi100
Apr 22, 10:45 AM
I think that it's to do with the geo-location on the camera app, as a person would want to immediately launch the camera app and take a picture, without waiting for the GPS to lock on to them.
That is fine; however, not encrypting the data isn't "fine" at all - they should at least try to keep our location secret, or delete the older GPS locations.
That is fine; however, not encrypting the data isn't "fine" at all - they should at least try to keep our location secret, or delete the older GPS locations.
iDisk
Apr 21, 11:49 AM
The thread is already de-railed and only 2 pages in?!
**Lets stay on topic everyone before I close the thread or put out warnings.**
**Lets stay on topic everyone before I close the thread or put out warnings.**
.jpg "Justin+ieber+ulge+in+")
Xpress
Apr 2, 11:42 PM
My backlight bleeds
Mine did too. Returned it to Apple, got a new one in 10 days. No bleeding.:D
Mine did too. Returned it to Apple, got a new one in 10 days. No bleeding.:D
SciFrog
Oct 5, 08:24 PM
Congrats, keep the bigadv coming!
Multimedia
Nov 22, 10:45 PM
Quad-core chips (and octo-core systems) are available now from the other top tier Intel vendors. Apple not included.Typical. Are they 2.33 and 2.66GHz models Aiden? Got links?
SideNote: The Madonna Concert in HD on NBC tonight is groundbreaking broadcast television. One of the most amazing telecasts I have ever seen-heard. I am a huge Madonna fan though. :D Tony Bennett's special last night also on NBC was an amazing HD composition as well.
SideNote: The Madonna Concert in HD on NBC tonight is groundbreaking broadcast television. One of the most amazing telecasts I have ever seen-heard. I am a huge Madonna fan though. :D Tony Bennett's special last night also on NBC was an amazing HD composition as well.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
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? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
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.
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?
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. 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?
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. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
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. 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? 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?
sunfast
Nov 28, 04:01 AM
I hope they do knock out a slightly more affordable screen as I'd love a nice external to go with my MB.
bigandy
Nov 29, 01:51 PM
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car ;)
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing :rolleyes:
I thought this the minute the thing was demonstrated - it'll be a whole lot more than they showed, and it'll look a whole lot different too, methinks. :)
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing :rolleyes:
I thought this the minute the thing was demonstrated - it'll be a whole lot more than they showed, and it'll look a whole lot different too, methinks. :)
Hastings101
Apr 2, 11:07 PM
Always have to use the word magical
shecky
Oct 23, 10:53 AM
What I would like to see them add is eSATA support but I bet they dont.
agreed, and agreed.
agreed, and agreed.
Thunderbird
May 2, 08:13 PM
Haha so many mad fanboys. " APL Y U RUIN MY OSX"
.
LOL...All your apps are belong to us!
This is dumb...but then, since when is Apple about intuitiveness, consistency and ergonomic efficiency?
.
LOL...All your apps are belong to us!
This is dumb...but then, since when is Apple about intuitiveness, consistency and ergonomic efficiency?
Schizoid
Mar 24, 06:57 PM
This is potentially great news...
I had a stock ATI 5850 in the Mac Pro for a while, OS X didn't like it but Windows ran it perfectly... in the end bit the bullet and bought a 5870 Mac edition for about twice the market value of a standard PC card!
Great decision though, the Mac now runs about 20 times faster... not just games either... the whole UI is great now (I guess thanks to OpenCL et al)
...and whoever decided the GT120 was a good card for a Mac Pro needs to be shot!
I had a stock ATI 5850 in the Mac Pro for a while, OS X didn't like it but Windows ran it perfectly... in the end bit the bullet and bought a 5870 Mac edition for about twice the market value of a standard PC card!
Great decision though, the Mac now runs about 20 times faster... not just games either... the whole UI is great now (I guess thanks to OpenCL et al)
...and whoever decided the GT120 was a good card for a Mac Pro needs to be shot!
ezekielrage_99
Nov 29, 07:45 PM
My thoughts exactly.
I'm all for the iPod, I'm happy with my 8GB red nano, but come on people, give the Zune a chance. Many of you are being petty, and I think that this is a stupid comparison.
There is only one Zune model anyway, are they comparing it to the countless models of the iPod?
Is that fair?
Are iPod Shuffles included? Is that fair, considering the price?
I can't access the link for some reason.
I respect the line about giving Zune a chance and then comparing it's success to Zune however I really don't think Zune has what it takes to come close to the iPod. The reality is the Zune looks like a 3 year old music player and it's only real selling points are the bigger screen, radio and wireless which aren't that big of a deal in the first place.
Zune is also getting in an already established and saturated digital music market with an inferior product and system for users, will it succeed? Only time will tell but there will be buyers for the Zune.
Should the Zune should get a fair comparison but the reality of business is there's nothing fair about it, Microsoft has prooven the unfair factor with Netscape, anti-Trust and Sony Rootkit time and time again.
If Zune was release 3 years ago then I would say it would outsell the iPod but the fact remains with nothing that outshines the iPod, subscription and limited file formats and playback it wont compete with the iPod or other players like the Samsung or Sandisk.
Zune is too little too late for Microsoft and really doesn't have the "wow" factor that ever I would expect for a company like Microsoft. I really do think the hot selling iPod this Xmas (or international present giving day as I like to call it) is the new Shuffle it seems everyone wants it, I have seen it sold out at quite a few stores already.
I'm all for the iPod, I'm happy with my 8GB red nano, but come on people, give the Zune a chance. Many of you are being petty, and I think that this is a stupid comparison.
There is only one Zune model anyway, are they comparing it to the countless models of the iPod?
Is that fair?
Are iPod Shuffles included? Is that fair, considering the price?
I can't access the link for some reason.
I respect the line about giving Zune a chance and then comparing it's success to Zune however I really don't think Zune has what it takes to come close to the iPod. The reality is the Zune looks like a 3 year old music player and it's only real selling points are the bigger screen, radio and wireless which aren't that big of a deal in the first place.
Zune is also getting in an already established and saturated digital music market with an inferior product and system for users, will it succeed? Only time will tell but there will be buyers for the Zune.
Should the Zune should get a fair comparison but the reality of business is there's nothing fair about it, Microsoft has prooven the unfair factor with Netscape, anti-Trust and Sony Rootkit time and time again.
If Zune was release 3 years ago then I would say it would outsell the iPod but the fact remains with nothing that outshines the iPod, subscription and limited file formats and playback it wont compete with the iPod or other players like the Samsung or Sandisk.
Zune is too little too late for Microsoft and really doesn't have the "wow" factor that ever I would expect for a company like Microsoft. I really do think the hot selling iPod this Xmas (or international present giving day as I like to call it) is the new Shuffle it seems everyone wants it, I have seen it sold out at quite a few stores already.
gkarris
Nov 29, 09:26 AM
I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
Bring back a $499 Mac Mini and a basic mouse and you have an inexpensive system!
(Maybe Apple could make a special "bundle" for $899?)
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
Bring back a $499 Mac Mini and a basic mouse and you have an inexpensive system!
(Maybe Apple could make a special "bundle" for $899?)
The Captain
Apr 13, 01:44 AM
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
No professional would let the software identify their subjects. Features like this do nothing to lighten the workflow of their productions. Only amateurs would allow an algorithms to determine what gets logged as what. Regardless of how the rest of the program turn out, the facial recognition is something only amateurs will use. Professionals have a higher standard of quality, and more complex needs than that.
BoyBach
Sep 1, 02:37 PM
I like my 'chin' and I find 17 inches to be perfectly adequate, thank you very much! ;)
GeekLawyer
Apr 12, 08:19 PM
That was pretty funny. It looked on Twitter like maybe 9to5mac had sorta tricked AppleInsider into announcing FCP7. (2 years after the fact.) Apparently there's a lot of "borrowing" of stories between the two sites.
No comments:
Post a Comment