.jpg "/Anuar zain profile. top songs")
Stella
Aug 16, 09:33 AM
If the report is from Digitimes then it can't be true.
They are consistently full of *****.
I'm surpised this isn't on page 2.
They are consistently full of *****.
I'm surpised this isn't on page 2.
macman312
Mar 22, 07:23 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
WHY?? I bought a ipod touch 8GB with my new macbook pro... but I should've got a classic I have 70GB of music and videos. The only reason I got a touch is because I like the games but if I get a iphone 5 I will also get a classic .
Also I have a old ipod video and you can use it as a 80GB portable harddrive. I will also email steve jobs.... is it sjobs@apple.com or steve@apple.com?
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
WHY?? I bought a ipod touch 8GB with my new macbook pro... but I should've got a classic I have 70GB of music and videos. The only reason I got a touch is because I like the games but if I get a iphone 5 I will also get a classic .
Also I have a old ipod video and you can use it as a 80GB portable harddrive. I will also email steve jobs.... is it sjobs@apple.com or steve@apple.com?
Apple Corps
Jul 19, 06:42 PM
does it mean mac's desktop market share is climbing? 5%?
No - they are actually losing market share.
No - they are actually losing market share.
Manic Mouse
Aug 20, 06:44 AM
But you know what I mean and you cannot possible say that they are easy inpurt methods for even moderately extended use. Or are you?
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
I'm getting a little confused, are you trying to say keyboards are not easy input methods? QWERTY keyboards are FULL keyboards like the ones you and I are using to type in these forums. I completely agree with you that phone/PSP-esque multi-press solutions are not good for extended use, which is why I think the MYLO is such a good example of what can be done with a "portable WiFi" device because it has a full keyboard.
The iPod would continue to sell "pure" (and I know I'm being contradictory as my original 1Gen iPod is a much different machine than my vid iPod but we're talking of the iPod as a basic walkman-type device) as there will always be demand for a music/media player at a fairly reasonably price. Either through attrition, improvements to current features (bigger screens, easier input methods, color screens, longer battery life, new battery types, etc) there will ALWAYS be demand for the iPod.
As you point out, the current iPod isn't a "pure" machine either. Apple have realised that they have to continually offer new things and more functionality to continue to sell and tempt existing customers to upgrade. As a music player my 4G iPod is more than sufficient: It has a nice enough size, decent enough battery life, 40Gb of space and music will not sound any better no matter how bigger the screen is. If the iPod is only to be a "pure" walkman then there is no reason for me to ever buy a new iPod unless it breaks, which is bad for Apple. Apple realise this, and validate my point by adding extra features to the iPod like photo and video support. Things like a web browser, IM etc are also just natural evolutions of the device.
Using your reasoning, why not add all these features and more to every TV on the market cuz, "Hey, pure machines are going to be extinct soon. Everybody has a TV so we're not going to be selling any more pretty soon... Let's add keyboards and webcams to the remotes. make 'em with wireless net access, hell, throw in Vista and a dock for the refrigerator to show you how much beer is left so you don't have to get up!!!" That's not what happens. Improvements come and are incorporated and even stick around if people like them or are weeded out in the next model. But those improvements are all related to the TV viewing experience. Remember webTV? and that was only offered as a separate add-on if memory serves.
Actually that's exactly what's happening. TV's now are having HDD's built in, PC's are having media centre's built in. Here in the UK, with the BBC, the difference between TV and computer are being blurred. A few minutes ago I watched a TV show on this computer steamed from the BBC.
You can innovate wothout mucking about with a winner by adding a battery draining
Well all the things I'm proposing are software, not hardware, features. So they should have minimal effect on battery life. The new iPod will have a large screen and WiFi regardless of whether it can surf the net/IM/email, and those are the battery draining features.
If apple feels there is a market for what some members of this forum are calling for and said market is large enough the smart move seems to me to be a new device along with that device's new profit stream, limit it's ability to cannibalize your other products in any large way. You get the idea. You don't need to make the iPod the be-all end-all device. In fact, I think if you did, you'd lose market share to other devices without the bloat.
But that is exactly what Apple are doing: When the ipod launched it was nothing more than an MP3 player yet the current iPods are evolving into the "be-all-and-end-all" device I'm suggesting: They play games, they have a calander, they show notes, they play videos, they display photos. Has Apple lost market share by offering these things? Or would they have lost market share if they had not offered them?
And precisely what other Apple product sales would a MYLO iPod cannibalise? What competing product does Apple offer?
And the argument that no one wants a "utility belt" with a million devices each dedicated to one function just doesn't hold water with me. I carry a lot of gear. A laptop, a comm device of some sort and my iPod would do anything I need to do as a civilian back in the world. Obviously I carry much more here as I have the desire to make it back to the real world but that's not what the real market is.
Like I said in my previous post, the mobile phone market (and what Apple have done with added functionality to the iPod) shows the exact opposite trend. I'd much rather have a MYLO iPod than cart a laptop and an iPod around with me EVERYWHERE I go.
But maybe I'm the oddd man out in this argument. I hope not but I have ben wrong once or twice. My wife says so.
Women are always right. Or so my mother tells me... :p
I don't believe that the next iPod will be a MYLO-esque device, but eventually it will offer all that functionality.
Mexbearpig
Nov 26, 09:57 AM
Finished gifts for 2 of 4 people in my family :D. And got third season of Dexter for myself which I am watching now. My mom also got a wireless printer which once iPad 4.2 is jailbreakable I can airprint :). Good day. And the movies costed $34 total :D
http://mozymac.com/uploads/22507201d0049df.jpg
http://mozymac.com/uploads/22507201d0049df.jpg
longofest
Jul 19, 05:46 PM
not as long as Vista customers will have to wait :D
It never gets old... ;)
It never gets old... ;)
DrFrankTM
Sep 1, 02:28 PM
Um, hate to break it to ya, but Apple sells television shows.
Yeah, I am vaguely aware of it. IMO, the ethernet port is the new TV tuner, but I think Apple has much higher margins on the hardware than on the digital content that they sell through the iTMS. Since the iTMS exists mostly to fuel hardware sales, if it was easy to include a TV tuner in a 23-inch iMac, Apple would do it as it would help sell more Macs.
I was just suggesting that the reason Apple doesn't want to include TV tuners in their products is that it would "regionalize" their products in a way they are trying to avoid as much as possible, I think. I guess I should have been more clear.
Yeah, I am vaguely aware of it. IMO, the ethernet port is the new TV tuner, but I think Apple has much higher margins on the hardware than on the digital content that they sell through the iTMS. Since the iTMS exists mostly to fuel hardware sales, if it was easy to include a TV tuner in a 23-inch iMac, Apple would do it as it would help sell more Macs.
I was just suggesting that the reason Apple doesn't want to include TV tuners in their products is that it would "regionalize" their products in a way they are trying to avoid as much as possible, I think. I guess I should have been more clear.
eNcrypTioN
Mar 22, 06:52 PM
I knew they wouldn't get rid of the classic. Something about just being able to put my entire music collection on one device keeps me coming back for more. The iPod touch doesn't come close to having as much storage space of the classic which is why I'll continue to keep purchasing iPod classics. And also, if I wanted a device like the iPod touch I would just buy the iPhone instead.
tablo13
Oct 2, 11:58 PM
Wow. Everyone at macrumors must love switcheasy. Are they that good? I wish the Colors case was TPU, because it looks very good. :( I don't like the look of RebelTouch.
e28
Aug 17, 11:40 AM
I don't really see the demand behind adding wireless functionality into the iPod. I think wireless is the buzz word right now and investment managers and industry analysts don't even know what it means.
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
Bluetooth headphones, if they sound good, and bluetooth syncing is the only function people might use out of this. However, most people charge as they sync, so they would need to connect the iPod to the computer anyway. Bluetooth headphones would need to be charged too, and that is a nuisance.
The only thing semi-useful out of 802.11 is sending audio to airport express. But I use my laptop for that already, so does this really add any functionality? No one I know will be typing in a 256-bit WPA key into their iPod so they can play their iPod music over their friend's airport express, either. At work, I can view and sample my coworker's library on my computer - even when they leave for lunch. And if I like it, I can buy it on iTunes right there. Again, where is the usefulness of a wireless iPod?
I can see how XM radio might be useful to many, even though it doesn't appeal to me. However, I would think Apple would want an exclusive deal if they were to offer this feature.
Thataboy
Jul 18, 06:54 AM
This would only be viable via streaming, and that won't happen because you can't stream to an iPod.
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
Therefore, we can expect a big download. I imagine the movies will be the same quality as can be found currently in the store. Remember, the online store is to drive IPOD sales. Apple does not have a Music Store because it wants you to have music so badly. The point of a Movie Store would be to drive 6G iPod sales. Therefore, it makes sense to optimize the viewing experience for iPods.
The only way this would be viable, in my opinion, is if a rental were $1.99-$2.99 MAX. Other than that, I can bloody well use Netflix and Instant Handbrake (deleting the files once I return the movie). I am not so impatient that I can't wait 1 day to get a movie from my queue. For $1.99, I could be persuaded.
However, let's be real here. Bandwidth + movie companies greed = huge prices. I can totally see them trying to do this at $9.99, which is warped and insane (and therefore right in line with content producers' mindsets). Even $4.99 is nuttery.
Now... when Apple finds a way to stream movies to an Apple high-speed MVNO-equipped iPod -- now THAT would be hot. But that won't be around for years, if ever at all.
Finally, no way in Hades is this to be announced at WWDC. Maybe a week before or after, but NOT at the same time. I actually don't envision this announcement being made at all, as it would surely coincide with a new iPod (and aren't those all supposed to be delayed?).
Surely
Jan 12, 05:37 PM
I was replying to zioxide, who only talked about screen size.
Ummmm.......
That's what SHE said.
/That's the joke. <- please think of this sentence in Rainier Wolfcastle's voice. Thank you.
Ummmm.......
That's what SHE said.
/That's the joke. <- please think of this sentence in Rainier Wolfcastle's voice. Thank you.
diamond.g
Mar 28, 10:32 AM
Here is a local thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1083585
:apple:Nice, about time. I am interested is seeing how it turns out.
Maybe I'm behind with the times, but I have no idea what OpenCL is. Apple has been known for supporting their standards no matter what sometimes.
OpenCL is the open version of GPGPU (if that helps any). It is ran by Khronos, just like OpenGL. What OpenCL would allow you to do is offload computations to any compatible device (in the is case we are focusing on GPUs) with CPU fall back (just like OGL). It is done because in some cases the GPU is faster than the CPU is (like say Folding@HOME, or encoding video).
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1083585
:apple:Nice, about time. I am interested is seeing how it turns out.
Maybe I'm behind with the times, but I have no idea what OpenCL is. Apple has been known for supporting their standards no matter what sometimes.
OpenCL is the open version of GPGPU (if that helps any). It is ran by Khronos, just like OpenGL. What OpenCL would allow you to do is offload computations to any compatible device (in the is case we are focusing on GPUs) with CPU fall back (just like OGL). It is done because in some cases the GPU is faster than the CPU is (like say Folding@HOME, or encoding video).
killmoms
Apr 13, 12:52 AM
All I need to know is if AJA will be supporting it.
If the answer is �yes,� then the whiny �pros� in this thread can shut up and get used to the new interface�it�s still just as pro as before.
SUPER excited about this. Can�t wait to see the rest of the suite. I�m doing a ton of hardware upgrades at my office now (new edit suites). Wish I could wait until the new FCS was out, but for now I�ll just eagerly await the day I can unleash all 12 cores of my incoming Mac Pros on some video game trailers. :D
If the answer is �yes,� then the whiny �pros� in this thread can shut up and get used to the new interface�it�s still just as pro as before.
SUPER excited about this. Can�t wait to see the rest of the suite. I�m doing a ton of hardware upgrades at my office now (new edit suites). Wish I could wait until the new FCS was out, but for now I�ll just eagerly await the day I can unleash all 12 cores of my incoming Mac Pros on some video game trailers. :D
islanders
Jan 4, 08:28 PM
Use Boot Camp and your Mac is a Windows PC, just like any other (although arguably nicer to look at ;) ). Any "conflicts" will be precisely the same conflicts that you'd get on a PC laptop.
BTW, right-clicking on an Apple notebook is now awesome! The "two-fingers on trackpad" click is great, and actually easier than having two buttons IMO.
Free 3D desktop wallpaper,
Desktop Wallpaper Free
Cross, Jesus, Salib, Yesus
wallpaper girl.
BTW, right-clicking on an Apple notebook is now awesome! The "two-fingers on trackpad" click is great, and actually easier than having two buttons IMO.
Eidorian
Jan 11, 04:53 PM
What does this mean for the regular MacBook then? Is it going to be another model or a replacement?
guez
Aug 29, 11:04 AM
This is exactly what I predicted would happen when Apple went Intel. Now that Macs can be compared component for component with Wintel machines and new hardware is coming out every month, everyone is worked up about keeping up with latest thing at the best possible price and getting increasingly frustrated with Apple's unwillingness to create a product line with 10000 different machines that each compete with dollar for dollar and component for component with every other machine on the market. Meanwhile, we have people talking about $299 machines with DVD burners (AND Windows? I'd like to see THAT!).
If you're so concerned about keeping up with the Jones, just buy a Dell, already.
If you're so concerned about keeping up with the Jones, just buy a Dell, already.
cwoloszynski
Nov 29, 03:07 PM
I don't care what extra features it has, as long as Apple designs a decent remote for it. Something full-sized with a click-wheel. I'd love to fast-forward through a movie using the click-wheel. The 4X, 8X etc on my current PVR just doesn't do it for me.
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
Apple Rox
They previewed the remote control when they previewed the iTV. I assume that they'll stick with that elegant and simple control. 5 buttons instead of 100+ buttons for the M$ Media Center nightmare.
Apple Rox
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 11:31 AM
My dream mini has a HD-DVD player, HDMI/DVI out, optical audio out (mainly important for those that want to connect to a surround sound receiver) and add some Netflix-like movie download subscription service added to iTunes. Put those together with space for a 3.5" hard drive and run Front Row 2.0 and I'd be psyched.
I really want the Mac Mini to be a basic TV hub device. It doesn't have to have a DVR, cable card slots or TV tuners built-in. Sure, if Apple could build an all-in-one box that's better than my HR10-250 (HD Tivo for DirecTV) or the upcoming Series 3 from Tivo that would be great. But for now I'd be happy with one box for TV watching (HR10-250) and one box for everything else (DVDs, music, movie downloading, casual web surfing).
I would like to see a "media center" with a basic built-in TV-tuner so I could use it as a TIVO. It cant be that hard to add a TV-tuner...
I really want the Mac Mini to be a basic TV hub device. It doesn't have to have a DVR, cable card slots or TV tuners built-in. Sure, if Apple could build an all-in-one box that's better than my HR10-250 (HD Tivo for DirecTV) or the upcoming Series 3 from Tivo that would be great. But for now I'd be happy with one box for TV watching (HR10-250) and one box for everything else (DVDs, music, movie downloading, casual web surfing).
I would like to see a "media center" with a basic built-in TV-tuner so I could use it as a TIVO. It cant be that hard to add a TV-tuner...
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
RaceTripper
Jan 31, 04:27 PM
imo, it needs deep dish wheels.. (or ronal turbo's)
still it's a nice ride non the less!Deep dish wheels are great, if they don't stick out the wheel wells from exaggerated width like a ghetto whip.
still it's a nice ride non the less!Deep dish wheels are great, if they don't stick out the wheel wells from exaggerated width like a ghetto whip.
archer75
May 3, 04:37 PM
Well, you got what you wanted on the 2GB 6970m! At least as a BTO option.
Yep, I am pleasantly surprised. I ordered one.
Yep, I am pleasantly surprised. I ordered one.
dongmin
Jul 19, 07:03 PM
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?Such short memories...
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
rasmasyean
Mar 21, 09:52 AM
Yeah, I loved his little 'wargasm' too.
That little mushroom thingie probably took a few people along with it. I'd suggest that we keep our 'oohs' and 'aahs' limited to Fourth of July fireworks.
There's a bit of "wargasm" in all of us. Some of us have less, some of us repress it to be "civilized". But if there were no army ants in addition to worker ants, the colony would have never made it.
I'm just not "ashamed" to enjoy watching the now governer of California blow up things in make believe, and enjoy the types of games created by the business and tech legend who helped put computers in everybody's office and homes.
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
It's not an "assasination" in this case. It's a military leadership target of war. They killed many of Sadam Hussain's top people deliberately in the early days of the Iraq War for instance. If you're interested in seeing how many "assasinations" take place, Wikipedia lists that status on the wars we are invovled in where you can see KIA's of significant people. There you will find, KIA's on "Militant Islamic movement leaders" in addition to "generals"....sometimes tracked and blown up by a drone prolly flown from arround the world. When you "declare war", anything goes apparently.
That little mushroom thingie probably took a few people along with it. I'd suggest that we keep our 'oohs' and 'aahs' limited to Fourth of July fireworks.
There's a bit of "wargasm" in all of us. Some of us have less, some of us repress it to be "civilized". But if there were no army ants in addition to worker ants, the colony would have never made it.
I'm just not "ashamed" to enjoy watching the now governer of California blow up things in make believe, and enjoy the types of games created by the business and tech legend who helped put computers in everybody's office and homes.
Wow, that is a shocker.
The U.S. Congress passed a law to prohibit any attempt to assassinate any foreign leader.
Why, I don't know, but there it is. :confused:
It's not an "assasination" in this case. It's a military leadership target of war. They killed many of Sadam Hussain's top people deliberately in the early days of the Iraq War for instance. If you're interested in seeing how many "assasinations" take place, Wikipedia lists that status on the wars we are invovled in where you can see KIA's of significant people. There you will find, KIA's on "Militant Islamic movement leaders" in addition to "generals"....sometimes tracked and blown up by a drone prolly flown from arround the world. When you "declare war", anything goes apparently.
