tstreete
Nov 8, 02:07 PM
I found the sound quality when playing music from the Tomtom car kit (as compared to a cable running from the headphone jack to the aux port) to be a bit improved. I think you get the equivalent of line out via the car kit, which is a slightly different signal from the headphone signal.
My car stereo is nothing special, though, so others might be able to provide a more detailed comparison.
can anyone comment on the sound quality when playing music on the iphone via the tomtom kit when it's connected to the car's sound system?
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
My car stereo is nothing special, though, so others might be able to provide a more detailed comparison.
can anyone comment on the sound quality when playing music on the iphone via the tomtom kit when it's connected to the car's sound system?
reason for asking: when i use a standard audio cable from the headphone output of my iphone into my car's aux in, the sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. i basically have to crank up the volume all the way on both my car system and the iphone to hear anything, and even what i hear isn't all that great.
Tsurisuto
Apr 21, 02:32 PM
Yes, but where is my Sandy Bridge Mac mini?!
MacNut
May 3, 06:13 PM
Our highway exits are distanced usually by a mile. Changing the system would really mess that up unless we reconstruct all the exit ramps.
MorphingDragon
May 6, 06:58 AM
I want them to go AMD across the board.
I'd like that.
AMD is currently a bang for buck chip maker, I doubt you'll see them CPUs in Apple products. Plus until Fusion develops some more the thermal envelope isn't too good.
I'd like that.
AMD is currently a bang for buck chip maker, I doubt you'll see them CPUs in Apple products. Plus until Fusion develops some more the thermal envelope isn't too good.
netdog
Sep 11, 09:05 AM
beatles
sam10685
Jul 30, 01:31 AM
I think it's real. No signs of photoshopping and the pic was taken in an elevator :D
massive sign's of photoshopping. the light on the phone doesn't match.
massive sign's of photoshopping. the light on the phone doesn't match.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 23, 05:11 PM
Am I the only one who loves looking at high res high quality icons? I feel a bit sad over here. :p
bedifferent
Apr 23, 04:38 PM
sorry just a correction the resolution isnt 3200x3200 its 3200x2000 i just checked
Where are the icons located?
Where are the icons located?
madmax14304
Apr 21, 03:03 PM
They cannot just abandon the rack mounted server market. Making the mac pro into a 3U format with optional rack mount ear would be ideal. However, to merge the Pro and Server market, I'd like to see:
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
Hell, supermicro just released a new 1U case with Redundant PSU, only 19.8" Deep and has 4xSATA/SAS hot swaps. It's the 813MTQ-R400CB. Cannot wait to snag one.
1. At least 4 Hot Swap drive bays that don't require the unit being removed.
2. Redundant power supply option
3. I'd love for it to be less than 24" deep. Going 3U, this shouldn't be hard at all.
Hell, supermicro just released a new 1U case with Redundant PSU, only 19.8" Deep and has 4xSATA/SAS hot swaps. It's the 813MTQ-R400CB. Cannot wait to snag one.
aarond12
Apr 5, 01:55 PM
I'm all for the freedom of jailbreaking, but I also have to be realistic: If I am a Scion fan (I'm not) and want this theme on my iPhone, I have to jailbreak it. If I mess something up and end up bricking my iPhone, can I blame Toyota? Not likely.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.
ciTiger
Mar 26, 11:40 PM
As long as it is solid with things that are actually NEEDED... :D
grockk
Aug 11, 10:31 AM
Makes no sense to put these in Macbook so soon. Macbook Pro, yes, but not the macbook. Apple have always differentiated the two lines, the fact that current Macbooks are comparable to the Pros is just plain luck and won't last long, IMO.
You are reasoning from apple's history but it's all different now. The problem with this logic is that since Dell, HP and Gateway will be using the merom in consumer computers and apple is using the same chips as everyone else they have to use merom too or appear to be behind in the technology.
You are reasoning from apple's history but it's all different now. The problem with this logic is that since Dell, HP and Gateway will be using the merom in consumer computers and apple is using the same chips as everyone else they have to use merom too or appear to be behind in the technology.
manu chao
Jul 30, 12:20 PM
It's true...but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Americans are used to getting free or cheap phones when they sign up for a carrier contract. The carriers subsidize the cost so that expensive phones can be had for <$200. They RARELY pay full retail price ($300-$700) on a phone...mainly only when they break theirs and still have time on their contract. The way I understand it, the rest of the world pays full retail everytime they want a new phone. Is this right?
In Europe, it is pretty much the same as in the US, most people get their cell phone with a contract.
In Europe, it is pretty much the same as in the US, most people get their cell phone with a contract.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:05 PM
Apple learned that with their old music player, you know the one before the iPod, oh wait there wasn't one...
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
jaw04005
Mar 30, 10:05 PM
First impressions: iCal's new UI is ugly. Speed is dramatically improved (on both my Air and Mac mini 2010). New QuickLook chapter UI for videos is really cool, not sure I like the white interface though. Launchpad doesn't crash after renaming folders.
Does the new build officially support TRIM on 3rd party SSDs?
No.
Does the new build officially support TRIM on 3rd party SSDs?
No.
Don't panic
May 4, 11:42 AM
Whoaaaaaaa! Easy! This game has no time limits. I'm not in any hurry to expedite our exploration and prefer a slower, more systematic approach with the strength of the full group intact. Also, this game is a group game, not DP v. Villain. I think majority group input within reasonable timeframes ( everyone is able to play at different times of the day) and consensus is important. At least at this time.
that is exactly what we did: kept together, and very conservatively explored the room we are in and then move to another room.
we couldn't be moving any slower than we are
that is exactly what we did: kept together, and very conservatively explored the room we are in and then move to another room.
we couldn't be moving any slower than we are
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Detlev
Jul 30, 08:38 AM
- The obvious untapped area is integration of VoIP, 3G, & video - but all the big companies are looking at that. The other thing that most mobile companies are having trouble with is the killer app - so many phones have data connectivity, and people just don't know what to do with it. If Apple can make a compelling product there the phone companies will want to sell it.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
Exactly. How could a non-player break open the market without the big companies support and infrastructure? It's not a computer that people want to carry around. It is an extremely simple to use, not bulky, communication device.
Using VoIP and 3G technology would be great but what service is ready to provide it in the U.S.? Apple is not going to sell cell phones to a few hundred people in three or four U.S. metropolitan markets and make money on it unless there is a way to open up the VoIP market BUT VoIP is going to get smothered in Washington politics soon enough so don't plan on that being free or useful (especially if NET NEUTRALITY is eliminated). A 3G phone would spark interest only from the standpoint that none of the networks could provide national (never mind international) service. It is a loosing proposition but I agree, they would have to differentiate it from other products (if it were real). Again the supposed photographer did not say it was an iPod phone. S/he would have made that observation.
Another thing about this mystery phone. Have there been any licenses pulled by Apple for telecommunications devices? There have been patents for all sorts of neat things but this would fall into a new category for them, would it not. Therefore there would be a rash of legal moves going on.
I'm skeptical of the whole cell phone idea. Would there be more use for a home phone or walkie talkie type radio, satellite, a computer phone accessory, or something else? I just don't see Apple providing hardware that gets limited distribution, where you would have to sign up for a two or three year service plan with yet another unreliable service provider that within a year or two will be merged into yet another, and a .Mac account if you do not have it yet, and the possibility that you have to cancel an existing contract with penalty. It just doesn't add up. It would be the most expensive cell phone/package on the market.
ps. Apple might choose to make a phone with no music capability... just to delineate the product. That gives people something to understand... and then they can release the combo products.
Exactly. How could a non-player break open the market without the big companies support and infrastructure? It's not a computer that people want to carry around. It is an extremely simple to use, not bulky, communication device.
Using VoIP and 3G technology would be great but what service is ready to provide it in the U.S.? Apple is not going to sell cell phones to a few hundred people in three or four U.S. metropolitan markets and make money on it unless there is a way to open up the VoIP market BUT VoIP is going to get smothered in Washington politics soon enough so don't plan on that being free or useful (especially if NET NEUTRALITY is eliminated). A 3G phone would spark interest only from the standpoint that none of the networks could provide national (never mind international) service. It is a loosing proposition but I agree, they would have to differentiate it from other products (if it were real). Again the supposed photographer did not say it was an iPod phone. S/he would have made that observation.
Another thing about this mystery phone. Have there been any licenses pulled by Apple for telecommunications devices? There have been patents for all sorts of neat things but this would fall into a new category for them, would it not. Therefore there would be a rash of legal moves going on.
I'm skeptical of the whole cell phone idea. Would there be more use for a home phone or walkie talkie type radio, satellite, a computer phone accessory, or something else? I just don't see Apple providing hardware that gets limited distribution, where you would have to sign up for a two or three year service plan with yet another unreliable service provider that within a year or two will be merged into yet another, and a .Mac account if you do not have it yet, and the possibility that you have to cancel an existing contract with penalty. It just doesn't add up. It would be the most expensive cell phone/package on the market.
emotion
Aug 2, 11:00 AM
Apple's been so boring this year, with a bluetooth might mouse just about the most exciting release thus far...
You're kidding right...MBP, MB and Mac Minis have all come out this year!
You're kidding right...MBP, MB and Mac Minis have all come out this year!
to1986
Apr 25, 09:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Proof please that that was an actual reponse from Steve Jobs? O wait you can't.
Now the media will latch onto this claiming Jobs is lying. The media are the best, so informative and truthful.
Proof please that that was an actual reponse from Steve Jobs? O wait you can't.
Now the media will latch onto this claiming Jobs is lying. The media are the best, so informative and truthful.
roadbloc
Mar 28, 11:15 AM
Looks like it's gonna just be Lion and iOS 5.
http://i.imgur.com/ghf38.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ghf38.jpg
Frobozz
May 4, 03:31 PM
I wish all software was handled through a single entry point, like the App Store. That way updates are handled through it, instead of a series of unrelated and often annoying separate updaters. Never understood why this wasn't more of a priority 5+ years ago, even.
~Shard~
Aug 12, 01:05 AM
That being said bring on the quad cores in the MBP's in a couple years. Just when I will be getting ready to upgrade. :D
Sounds like you'll be getting a nice Penryn MBP then! ;) :D :cool:
Sounds like you'll be getting a nice Penryn MBP then! ;) :D :cool:
tstreete
Nov 14, 08:23 AM
The key for making this purchase for me is to have at least the option to allow the calls to come in through the car's speakers while using the built-in mic on the dock.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.