or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Pentium M-based Intel chip at heart of Apple TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pentium M-based Intel chip at heart of Apple TV - Page 4

post #121 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigkid_in_ny View Post

Any idea if this will stream/transfer over other content than ITunes purchases?
DVD Rips, MPGs, AVIs, etc?

If the codexs are there it will play items stored in iTunes not just the iTS purchases. I don't know about sharing movies and photos that Front Row allows.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #122 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

If the codexs are there it will play items stored in iTunes not just the iTS purchases. I don't know about sharing movies and photos that Front Row allows.

"H.264 MP4 Mencoder" encoded via FffmpegX (eg. for DVDRips) will play nicely in Quicktime. I'm having trouble with Xvids though in MacBook Intel 10.4.8, QT7.
post #123 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Heh. So I guess you'll buy one in 2009. 8)

I guess cerebral isn't the only masturbation on the cards then!

'Here flossy'
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #124 of 145
What I'd really like to know is what is the chain of command for all the products together. Airport lets any external hardrive become a network drive so I'm picturing a 750mb drive with all my media attached to to airport so I wouldn't have it on my tv or mac in the first place.

Is this possible:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My mac sees that.
My tv sees that through my mac.


Then I wouldn't need to have much on my computer, which I would be cool and save me an assload of diskspace.

What would be really really great is:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My tv sees that without needing my mac on.


That'd be awesome. Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #125 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgNuke1707 View Post

IF you have a wireless keyboard. Not everyone DOES. And, if you can see the small type all the way from your couch, more power too you. I also don't want my keyboard hanging out at my coch where I can spill beer all over it

You can spill beer on any remote, that's just an occupational hazard. Lord knows I've spilled booze on all kinds of shit. What we need is to water proof everything!


Quote:
Originally Posted by kSec

Someone said that within one year most Monitor will be 1080P or FullHD.....
Well it is already the case today. All new TV are either "FullHD" or "1080P" "capable" already.

Naw, that's not even close to true. Maybe most brand new tvs debuted this year 42" and up are fullHD, but that doens't change what's available for sale today. Most of the debuted tvs don't ship for about half a year anyways, I know because I've been eyeing the new Sharps. And even so I'm also eyeing a new Samsung slim for my bedroom(because of the price) and those also aren't "fullHD."

edit: OOPS I just read the rest of your post and I see that you are commenting on something someone else said. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #126 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?

It's already possible to have your iTunes library on a network device, afaik. So your first scenario seems fine.

The second one? I think Apple may decide to allow that at some point, but for now the functionality is turned off.

How about a 3rd scenario...
I have a master iTunes library on a server/hard disk. And like an iPod Nano, I sync my laptop from the master library, giving me a small subset of music since I don't have a big hard disk. I'd like that.
post #127 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My mac sees that.
My tv sees that through my mac.[/b]

Then I wouldn't need to have much on my computer, which I would be cool and save me an assload of diskspace.

What would be really really great is:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My tv sees that without needing my mac on.


That'd be awesome. Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?

Yes and probably No. AppleTV (and every other media extender appliance) is technically able to see the NAS. However, since AppleTV apparently works hand-in-hand with iTunes, you may have to use the NAS as your iTunes library to get AppleTV functionality. This all seems like a lot of back and forth networking, but if you have multiple computers in your home, this may be the only solution you have. If you only have one computer, then just use the USB port on the computer (unless it's a notebook).

I hope, though it's a longshot, that Apple allows the AppleTV to access media directly from the Airport Extreme. That would reduce the additional network traffic utilization that would otherwise be needed by going from the Airport Extreme connected NAS to the Mac to Apple TV when it could just simple go from the Airport Extreme to AppleTV. Boom!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #128 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSuperiority View Post

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.


You're right genius. Apple shouldn't be in the business of making any money.
post #129 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander

It's already possible to have your iTunes library on a network device, afaik. So your first scenario seems fine.

Is there literature from apple on how to do this? I don't have the stuff to do it yet but if it works well and easy I might consider doing that

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yes and probably No. AppleTV (and every other media extender appliance) is technically able to see the NAS. However, since AppleTV apparently works hand-in-hand with iTunes, you may have to use the NAS as your iTunes library to get AppleTV functionality. This all seems like a lot of back and forth networking, but if you have multiple computers in your home, this may be the only solution you have.

Too bad, they should make ?tv have it's own customized version of itunes to get around that.

Quote:
If you only have one computer, then just use the USB port on the computer (unless it's a notebook).

It is a notebook, not the only computer but my mbp is definetly the one that handles all that stuff. A notebook can't use external storage for it's itunes library? Or do you just mean that since it's mobile its not a permanent solution. I guess when I wanna use ?tv I could just plug it into my mbp. My current itunes library on my mbp is 13gb already and I don't use itunes for video...yet, so an external solution(possibly networked) would be best.


I hope, though it's a longshot, that Apple allows the AppleTV to access media directly from the Airport Extreme. That would reduce the additional network traffic utilization that would otherwise be needed by going from the Airport Extreme connected NAS to the Mac to Apple TV when it could just simple go from the Airport Extreme to AppleTV. Boom![/QUOTE]

Yeah exactly, plus I could use it when my computer is off.

Any word on when going from mac to appletv if the mac can be asleep?
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #130 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Is there literature from apple on how to do this? I don't have the stuff to do it yet but if it works well and easy I might consider doing that

To store your itunes on the server/hard disk...

In your iTunes Preferences, under Advanced, set your iTunes Music Folder location to wherever you want (ie your network device).
post #131 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutrix View Post

Why would Apple bother spending all that money and time to achieve a couple of new sales of songs and movies when they don't even make money from them?

Because those sales would drive iPod and now AppleTV sales, just like they do today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutrix View Post

The whole approach of iTunes is that it does everything for you. The idea of season pass is that it downloads every new version, and by definition it will sync it to apple TV straight away. While the MS thing is a good price, how much do the geeks who use XBox 360 A.) Spend on XBox Live B.)Spend on the super-dooper XBox 360 that you need in order to have a large enough hard drive in order to store all these HD videos and C.) Spend on their 50 Mbit/s ultra geek connection to actually download all this gumpf.

I'm going to skip right to point C. How is this any different than getting stuff from iTS which is practically all the AppleTV can play anyhow? Still need to download it. And you wouldn't be making this ridiculous argument in the first place if Apple had announced it was now offering 720p downloads.

Point B: How is this different than buying a $300 AppleTV which can't even do as much as the $399 XBox 360?

Point A; XBox Live is $80 for a year, but that includes a webcam...couldn't find a price without the webcam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutrix View Post

Microsoft is the prime example of how throwing money at a problem may get you results, but not the best results. I can imagine in typical Microsoft style, the XBox Live store will be confusing in terms of prices (points?? is that like monopoly money?) and confusing in terms of interface.

I'm not entirely keen on defending Microsoft, but the XBox Live prices and points do convert to real money that you could use up (unlike Zune points). Yes, it could be confusing with the points, but at least they are in whole 100 amounts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutrix View Post

Microsoft is aiming at a vastly different market I'm afraid so your argument there is void. As for iTunes, just go to your computer, click on what you want, download it, and then press sync to Apple TV, done.... Do you really want years of Apple software engineering for something that would take you 5 seconds more otherwise, or maybe 5 minutes pre-planning? God it's this kind of lazy attitude that is causing mass obesity in this world.

Let me see, scrolling through an onscreen keyboard is more cumbersome then this process:

Go to iTunes on computer.
Search for song/movie/TV show.
Wait for show to download.
Return to living room to watch on AppleTV.

I wonder what updates they are putting in Front Row for this. Currently, if a TV show is downloading, Front Row will give you an error message if you try to access anything that would be in the same folder as the show downloading (for example if you download Episode 7 of Heroes, episodes 1-6 will be unavailable until it finishes). Obviously, that also means it can't do what iTunes can and allow you to start watching the show while it downloads. And please Apple, fix the fricking TV show sort so they are alphabetical!!
post #132 of 145
For those that think AppleTV is overpriced, check out the $350 Netgear EVA8000 media appliance.

It offers quite a bit less hardware wise than AppleTV, but it does offer support YouTube (kinda) and many codecs such as Xvid and DivX.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #133 of 145
Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?, Video downloaded from the internet isn't all that great anyway, the movies on the Itunes store are compressed, so what's the big deal about HD? My mac mini is currently hooked up my stereo via a cable, and hooked up to my monitor and video projector via a splitter. Works for me.
post #134 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychic Shopper View Post

Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?

That's already been asked/answered more times than anyone can count.
post #135 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychic Shopper View Post

Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?, Video downloaded from the internet isn't all that great anyway, the movies on the Itunes store are compressed, so what's the big deal about HD? My mac mini is currently hooked up my stereo via a cable, and hooked up to my monitor and video projector via a splitter. Works for me.

  • Your Mac mini is twice the cost of an AppleTV. Most people don't like to use their entertainment center as their computer.
  • Most HTPCs have significant fan noise which makes using it in the same room as your TV less than ideal. These small media appliances that are popping up give you the best of both worlds. Many even have rudimentary internet access.
  • Even HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are compressed using H.264, the same codec as on the iTS.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #136 of 145
here is the price and the iTV specs







Find out more here

http://www.apple.com/appletv
post #137 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Seriously, WHY is there a Hard Drive in this thing? It makes NO SENSE! If it can stream at 300Mb/s, that should be plenty quick for any 802.11n-equipped computer. So assuming that one's AppleTV gets its media from a "host computer" (which is in turn connected to the iTS), everything on the AppleTV would be a duplicate of content on the host computer -- a device which could just as well be streaming the data. Apple could have cut the price by almost $50 by not including the 40GB HD. Very unwise, if you ask me.

I completely agree... at least for myself.

I have always-on media servers at my house and would prefer a pure network media player. For me, the local cache is an unneeded expense.

I suspect that apple put a hard drive in it so that people who turn their computers off, or have laptops, can watch content without having to turn on their computer.
post #138 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I have always-on media servers at my house and would prefer a pure network media player. For me, the local cache is an unneeded expense.

Same here; I've been noticing we have similar media streaming strategies.

I wonder if ATV still works if its HD fails.

Quote:
I suspect that apple put a hard drive in it so that people who turn their computers off, or have laptops, can watch content without having to turn on their computer.

Or "borrow" protected content via synching though I don't understand all the authorization aspects of it yet. In iTunes, authorizing protected content is a one-time transaction. For ATV, Internet access is required at different times although information from Apple is still sparse. That's not the clearest explanation but hopefully it makes some sense. I'm still thinking of other scenarios when the HD "cache" might be useful.
post #139 of 145
Wouldn't it be nice if we had one iTunes library and used partial syncing and caching to play to all our machines?
post #140 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Wouldn't it be nice if we had one iTunes library and used partial syncing and caching to play to all our machines?

Even better, one library with no syncing or caching.

Not that having multiple computers with content is bad. Rather, the best solution is one that doesn't require any syncing or caching. The user gets a list of all the available content and selects what they want to play. They shouldn't have to manage anything.

iTunes accomplished this almost perfectly with music file management on a single computer. People no longer have to ever touch, move, or rename song files, ever. Next, iTunes took on the difficulties of library management on multiple computers on the LAN. I wouldn't characterize their solution as perfect, but it is probably still the best available.

The AppleTV is a network video player for lack of a better term. Apple is attempting to simplify media playback by making media available anywhere on the network regardless of where it is physically stored. And here's the important part... with as little file management as possible. The whole concept of "syncing "is a necessary evil at best.
post #141 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Even better, one library with no syncing or caching.

Not that having multiple computers with content is bad. Rather, the best solution is one that doesn't require any syncing or caching. The user gets a list of all the available content and selects what they want to play. They shouldn't have to manage anything.

Don't get me wrong I want to sit at any iTunes and have the full library. I want fast response to any search or browsing of the library, and I don't want any stutters due to the network (even if someone restarted the 'server'). I'd prefer the song to keep playing if I take my laptop out of range (doesn't happen too often) and I'd also like to keep playing if I leave my network entirely.

Now, my Laptop may not be able to hold the whole library, so I'd need to nominate (somehow) my subset of music/video etc.

Most of syncing and caching doesn't need any user intervention. The user doesn't care how it works, what's local and what's on the server. They just want their full library (and when away, a nominated OR shuffled subset).
post #142 of 145
I view syncing as a temporary and necessary evil. The best solution is that of wireless network video players streaming anything from anywhere.

We're... so... close.
post #143 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I view syncing as a temporary and necessary evil. The best solution is that of wireless network video players streaming anything from anywhere.

We're... so... close.

I've always been against the principle of "speed up the network!" in contrast to the "be more efficient in what we send across the network".

In previous posts you've said you don't like syncing, but your reasons are stated around usability. Are there other reasons?
post #144 of 145
Usability issues are my main gripe with syncing. I suppose that if all of your synced devices had capacities larger than your media collection, it wouldn't be an issue.

Cost would be another reason. If a network is available, there is no need for local storage. Which means you don't have to pay for storage and the product is cheaper.
post #145 of 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Usability issues are my main gripe with syncing. I suppose that if all of your synced devices had capacities larger than your media collection, it wouldn't be an issue.

Cost would be another reason. If a network is available, there is no need for local storage. Which means you don't have to pay for storage and the product is cheaper.

Agreed that you don't want a subset available on your computer, you want all available. And it has to be seemless. This can be done though using a caching/syncing background process and a bit more brains in the iTunes software (to show the whole library, but play from local source if it's synced).

I doubt you'll save much money by smaller hard disks on your computer - it would be nice to have central storage in general (not just for iTunes) and maybe let Time-machine use excess local capacity for its backups.

Anywa... getting way off topic - apologies to others... let you get back to Pentium M stuff
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Pentium M-based Intel chip at heart of Apple TV