Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Them are big puppies, though, and lack firewire..
    As well as 20 minute skip protection. That's damn fine.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  2.    #42  
    20 minute skip protection? Why? I suppose it's as easy to make 20 minutes as it is one minute, but it seems like a silly feature.

    That said, I took a bit more time poking around the Apple site, and, even though I think it is overpriced, I do think this is a great product. It's beautifully designed and it's the best Interface on an MP3 player I've seen yet (well, next to using an actual laptop.)

    Will it sell? Who knows...but it's nice to see Apple going after other consumer lines. I'm still hoping for a PDA sooner or later...
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  3. Rob
    Rob is offline
    Rob's Avatar
    Posts
    531 Posts
    Global Posts
    533 Global Posts
    #43  
    Originally posted by homer
    20 minute skip protection? Why? I suppose it's as easy to make 20 minutes as it is one minute, but it seems like a silly feature.
    Actually, having a 32MB RAM buffer is important, but not as much for skip protection as for battery life. It takes much less power to spin up the disk once every 20 minutes than having it spinning the whole time you are playing music. That's part of the reason they can claim 10-hrs continuous play from a hard drive based MP3 player.
  4.    #44  
    Hey Rob...good point. That makes perfect sense.

    Did anyone check out the commercial? That must be one hell of a hard drive to withstand that kind of movement.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by homer
    ...even though I think it is overpriced, I do think this is a great product. It's beautifully designed and it's the best Interface on an MP3 player I've seen yet (well, next to using an actual laptop.)
    Agreed. I think this is one of the finest, if not the finest HD based MP3 player on the market. Too bad Apple locked me out of its "digital hub" loop. I'd love to own one.

    Will it sell? Who knows...but it's nice to see Apple going after other consumer lines. I'm still hoping for a PDA sooner or later...
    Well I know one thing. They would sell a hell of a lot more iPods, had Apple made it PC compatible. They lost one sale today.

    Yeah, I'd also love to see an Apple PDA as well. But after today, I don't feel confident that Apple would make it available to me. Apparently that's a "Mac only" type of thing.

    Can you tell I'm pissed off?
  6.    #46  
    I don't feel confident that Apple would make it available to me. Apparently that's a "Mac only" type of thing.
    Well, PocketPCs are only for Windows...

    I do agree though...we're using standard technologies now on all platforms...what does it take to write an extra driver here and there...
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    [...] Well I know one thing. They would sell a hell of a lot more iPods, had Apple made it PC compatible. They lost one sale today. [...]
    According to TechTV, Apple quietly announced that a PC version of the desktop part would be available in a December/January timeframe. The TechTV correspondent was rather annoyed too, because less than 10 minutes before, he had asked Jobs about it in a Q&A session, and Jobs blew him off.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #48  
    Originally posted by homer
    [...] Well, PocketPCs are only for Windows...
    Not for much longer. M$ is supposedly releasing a Mac Sync product for OS 9.x and OS X RSN.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by foo fighter


    Agreed. I think this is one of the finest, if not the finest HD based MP3 player on the market. Too bad Apple locked me out of its "digital hub" loop. I'd love to own one.



    Well I know one thing. They would sell a hell of a lot more iPods, had Apple made it PC compatible. They lost one sale today.

    Yeah, I'd also love to see an Apple PDA as well. But after today, I don't feel confident that Apple would make it available to me. Apparently that's a "Mac only" type of thing.

    Can you tell I'm pissed off?
    ''


    Then buy a MAC or wait until MicroSoft pirates the idea.
    When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
  10. #50  
    Originally posted by Toby
    According to TechTV, Apple quietly announced that a PC version of the desktop part would be available in a December/January timeframe.
    Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Toby. I hadn't heard any such announcement. There may be hope for me yet.
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by Potus
    Then buy a MAC or wait until MicroSoft pirates the idea.
    Ha! Lets not go there again. Apple had a chance to grab me up until a couple months ago, when I was looking to replace my aging workstation (a Pentium II box). But Apple prices its PowerMac G4 towers in the upper stratosphere and gives virtually nothing in the way of specs. So I opted for a PC. It's a shame to, because I REALLY wanted the Mac.

    Naturally, when the iPod was announced, I was excited by the prospects of owning a really cool Apple branded MP3 player. Especially since I was planning on replacing my old MP3 player anyway. But it's not to be...at least for now.
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by foo fighter

    Ha! Lets not go there again. Apple had a chance to grab me up until a couple months ago, when I was looking to replace my aging workstation (a Pentium II box). But Apple prices its PowerMac G4 towers in the upper stratosphere and gives virtually nothing in the way of specs. So I opted for a PC. It's a shame to, because I REALLY wanted the Mac.
    Hmm, I'd be interested in hearing what "virtually nothing" means in reference to specs.

    Originally posted by foo fighter

    Naturally, when the iPod was announced, I was excited by the prospects of owning a really cool Apple branded MP3 player. Especially since I was planning on replacing my old MP3 player anyway. But it's not to be...at least for now.
    So, are you saying you're willing to pay a premium price for peripherals, but not for the "digital hub"?

    Not looking to start another Apple-vs-the-world debate. I'm just not following the logic here.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  13. #53  
    Originally posted by sowens
    Hmm, I'd be interested in hearing what "virtually nothing" means in reference to specs.
    Certainly.

    Basically, my budget was somewhere between $1200-1500 on a new workstation. Apple's entry level G4 starts at $1700. That alone gave me chills. But in reference to my comment regarding the G4s paltry specs, here is what I mean:

    The entry level G4

    * 733mhz proc
    * 128mb PC133 RAM
    * 40gig ATA/66 (5400 RPM) hard drive
    * Nvidia GeForce 2MX video card
    * CD-RW
    * NO SPEAKERS!
    * + shipping $90

    Price = $1800


    PC purchased from DELL

    * 1.7GHZ P4 proc
    * 256MB PC800 RDRAM
    * 60gig ATA/100 (7200 RPM) Hard drive
    * Nvidia GeForce 2MX video
    * CD-RW
    * DVD
    * Harman-Kardon speakers with subwoofer
    * + FREE SHIPPING!

    Price = $1368


    See what I mean? The only area where the two systems even compare on even footing, is the video card. And the fact that Apple bundles a 5400 RPM ATA/66 hard drive on a "Workstation" class machine is a JOKE! For god sake, this is a "Power"Mac. I might expect such drive to exist on iMacs...but a PowerMac? I realize that by purchasing a G4 through an authorized Mac dealer, I could have received an additional 128 or even 256 mb Ram for free, but that still doesn't fix the poor hard drive. If I had gone out and purchased a high speed replacement, that would have driven the price up even further. So by the time I had brought the G4 up to par with the lower priced PC, I would have spent well over $2000, which hardly seems justifiable.

    I loved the G4, but I'm not going to blow my hard earned money on a system that doesn't meet my needs. If Apple doesn't offer a competitive product for me, as a consumer, that's their problem, but my loss.

    So, are you saying you're willing to pay a premium price for peripherals, but not for the "digital hub"?
    I am willing up to a point. I'm human, and I do have my budgetary limits. Again, this is Apple's fault..not mine.
  14. Rob
    Rob is offline
    Rob's Avatar
    Posts
    531 Posts
    Global Posts
    533 Global Posts
    #54  
    Originally posted by foo fighter

    But in reference to my comment regarding the G4s paltry specs, here is what I mean:
    ...
    See what I mean? The only area where the two systems even compare on even footing, is the video card.
    Ah, I see. When you said 'gives virtually nothing in the way of specs', I thought you were talking about the availability of published specifications (like you went to their web site and they wouldn't tell you what the CPU speed was or something!)
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    But Apple prices its PowerMac G4 towers in the upper stratosphere...
    Foo, how has this changed any? Hell, their $1700 machine that your ******** about used to cost $3400 at the beginning of the year. Seems like a pretty drastic price reduction to me. PowerMacs and PowerBooks are priced rather high (losses that will get recouped - it the statisticians can be believed). Period. Even their iMacs are slightly higher than an Intel-based counterpart. As for iBooks - I don't think you can go wrong at all.

    And don't get me started on the crap P4 chip. I'll take a PIII if I'm using windows (or an AMD for Linux), thanks.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    ...their $1700 machine that your ******** about used to cost $3400 at the beginning of the year. Seems like a pretty drastic price reduction to me.
    Wrong. This is not the former high-end G4, it's the former low-end G4 (466mhz proc) that has been fitted with a 733. The price has not changed, and neither have the specs (with the exception of the processor and video card).

    As for iBooks - I don't think you can go wrong at all.
    No argument there. My next notebook with be either a Tbook or an iBook. I can't wait to get this friggin Dell paid off!

    And don't get me started on the crap P4 chip.
    The only reason I chose the P4 is because..the next version of Photoshop will be optimized for the P4, not the Athlon. And Dell gave me a pretty sweet deal. I'll be neading a jar of Vasoline handy when I upgrade the memory though. A 128mb board still costs around $100.
  17. #57  
    d-r:
    And don't get me started on the crap P4 chip. I'll take a PIII if I'm using windows (or an AMD for Linux), thanks.
    Please get started. What don't you like relative to PIII?
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by na2rboy
    Please get started. What don't you like relative to PIII?
    I know you weren't directing this question to me, but I'll add my penny to the pile anyway.

    The P4 is a new architecture. And while it offers excellent performance is some ares..such as video and graphics..it doesn't run standard x86 applications as fast as the Athlon or the older PIII.

    For applications that are optimized for the P4, like the new upcoming release of Photoshop, performance increases dramatically.

    But in my opinion, the P4 is a bloated, sloppy architecture. Not nearly as elegant as PowerPC or AMD's Palomino Athlon.
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    I know you weren't directing this question to me, but I'll add my penny to the pile anyway.

    The P4 is a new architecture. And while it offers excellent performance is some ares..such as video and graphics..it doesn't run standard x86 applications as fast as the Athlon or the older PIII.

    For applications that are optimized for the P4, like the new upcoming release of Photoshop, performance increases dramatically.

    But in my opinion, the P4 is a bloated, sloppy architecture. Not nearly as elegant as PowerPC or AMD's Palomino Athlon.
    Exactly. Along with poor system performane w/Windows. The same reason I'd put a PIII into a Win maching and an AMD into a linux machine. I like AMD's better, but they just don't play as nicely w/Windows. Linux works equally as well. To prove my point, we have two AMD computers at work that were running Win95 and Win98SE. Neither were used due to lock ups (after complete hard drive partitioning, formatting, and a 'clean' install of their repecitve windows). We put linux on them and they're our most reliable machines - one is our new server (the old one was running 2k pro).
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    ...poor system performane w/Windows.
    I thought Windows makes any system perform poorly?

    I like AMD's better, but they just don't play as nicely w/Windows.
    Especially Athlon motherboards with VIA chipsets.

    Linux works equally as well.
    I've been playing around with Linux lately, and I am genuinely impressed with the strides the Linux community has made in refining the OS. I'm really starting to warm up to Gnome, but I think KDE is more usable. The only problem I have is that I can't get the damn thing to work with my Modem(s). Mandrake 8.0 can't see my Zoom PCMCIA modem in my laptop, and the Zoom 56k ISA modem doesn't configure properly in my old Pentium II box. It's a shame because if I could get online with my Linux box, I think I would use it more for surfing than new DELL. I'm dying to download the Ximian gnome environment, it looks kickass.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions