Really? On what do you base your opinion? Mine is based on my recent experience with Apple: I still can't use my Logitech USB webcam that was disabled due to a bug in 10.4.10. Apple's verified the bug, but no fix since JUNE! So, I have no faith on that one, and yes, I'm thinking straight.
And people like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. To use .Mac, Apple now says you need to run 10.4.10. But if you want to use your web cam, you need to use 10.4.9. What's a person to do?
And I'll repeat myself. Apple needs to learn how to be up-front on issues. Why waste people's time wondering what's going to not work, when it will (if ever), etc.
Really? On what do you base your opinion? Mine is based on my recent experience with Apple: I still can't use my Logitech USB webcam that was disabled due to a bug in 10.4.10. Apple's verified the bug, but no fix since JUNE! So, I have no faith on that one, and yes, I'm thinking straight.
I disagree with your assessment. Wireless TM is an important feature to Apple (at least their marketing would indicate such). The reasonable thing to conclude is that they were having some serious problems with it. Is it possible that these problems are insurmountable? -- perhaps, I guess. But it's more likely that they ran out of time and had to axe it for now.
The wireless TM feature is a great one, they're not going to let it die unless they have no other choice. The only thing that someone mentioned many posts ago that might hold back this feature showing up is if the high traffic over the AE(n) destroys the router. That I can buy; and you certainly wouldn't want your $200 router crapping out after 6 months (nor would Apple). These sorts of issues take time to build data, perhaps Apple just realised that this was a problem.
I don't think that Apple cares that much about your web-cam. The "home on iPod" would have been a better comparison. Am I being more level now? I still think that it's unreasonable to think that this won't show up soon.
I really don't think that's true anymore. I'm in a #50 market and ALL my local channels are digital, and it's been that way for at least a couple years. All the major networks have at least prime time in HD. Only the affiliates of the minor networks like the CW are SD-only, but they are digital.
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
Now the big talk is always the difference between 720p and 1080p people sending thousands more in some cases for 1080p when they have no clue what it even means.
Its kind of like gamers buying SLI 8800gtx video cards to get 200fps not realizing the human eye can not see past 30fps. Even better the ones that argue that point.
Not to mention the only thing that will handle 1080p is either HD-DVD of Blu-Ray, neither cable nor dish tv will broadcast anything above 1080i/720p.
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
Small features? Stayed on schedule?.. I have read alot of your posts and i have come to the conclusion that if Steve Jobs took a shit in a brown bag and tagged it the iDump you would find a reason to say it was great.
Haha... that was funny! At last someone who isn't willing to lick Job's shoes.
Whoever thinks that this issue will not be resolved quickly is not thinking straight. It's just like all of the people who complained that the iPhone is completely locked to third-party developers. Apple is working on the sdk now, and they will add wireless back-up soon. No one wasted any money on AE or external drives, because wireless TM is just being delayed until it's ready.
We're all just pissed because Apple doesn't say ANYTHING on the subject, they think we're all morons and won't realise the feature ever existed.
Spoken like a true Apple salesman. Apple can't deliever so you start bashing Vista instead of addressing the reason issue, that Apple can't deliever as usual.
For those of you that think that Apple TV is one of the worst pieces of s*it Apple has come up with since the puck mouse then you should have a look at the new offerings from EMTEC. It's Mac compatible, it can read a number of file formats (DivX included of course), and it can record TV programs directly onto the disk in MPEG 2. It also has a slot for SD cards so you can watch pictures on your big telly. You can buy it with different disk sizes (160GB to 500GB or even without a hard disk), and you can even connect an external disk to it. Oh, and it's far cheaper than Apple TV. The only letdowns is that it doesn't come with Wi-Fi, but you can connect it to a router through Ethernet, and that it doesn't have an HDMI output.
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
Just to be clear, I'm talking over the air using a TV antenna, not through the DirectTV satellite service. I'm getting stuff like NBC at no cost.
DirectTV has always been digital. Cable is another subscription service, they are not covered by the ATSC mandates.
Quote:
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
All indications that I see is that they are going to stick with it this time. Before, the market wasn't ready for it and the converter boxes for existing sets weren't affordable enough either.
The FCC is already very far along in prepping to sell that bandwidth. There is no one in a position of authority that's even talking about another delay.
Quote:
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
I agree, not for several years. The current ATSC standard doesn't allow for it. The best that can be done is to make sure the video stream has proper, consistent 2:3 pull-down so that TV sets can deinterlace it properly into the original frames. Usually film-sourced video has that, but live cameras usually don't.
I really don't think that's true anymore. I'm in a #50 market and ALL my local channels are digital, and it's been that way for at least a couple years. All the major networks have at least prime time in HD. Only the affiliates of the minor networks like the CW are SD-only, but they are digital.
Just to clear up some preconceived notions, you do know that digital isn't necessarily better than analog, right? It's all about the bandwidth, I receive some digital channels that look a lot worse than my DivX collection, you can see the individual pixels so clearly it seems that you're looking at some good quality video on YouTube. Same thing goes for HD, most people will be spending big bucks on full HD when 99% of the time they will be looking at some crap looking image sent by a channel that didn't want to pay the full HD price.
For those of you that think that Apple TV is one of the worst pieces of s*it Apple has come up with since the puck mouse then you should have a look at the new offerings from EMTEC. It's Mac compatible, it can read a number of file formats (DivX included of course), and it can record TV programs directly onto the disk in MPEG 2. It also has a slot for SD cards so you can watch pictures on your big telly. You can buy it with different disk sizes (160GB to 500GB or even without a hard disk), and you can even connect an external disk to it. Oh, and it's far cheaper than Apple TV. The only letdowns is that it doesn't come with Wi-Fi, but you can connect it to a router through Ethernet, and that it doesn't have an HDMI output.
I guess you are referring to the EMTEC Movie Cube and Movie Cube -R. The only thing I have to ask is, do they not understand what a cube is?
Just to be clear, I'm talking over the air using a TV antenna, not through the DirectTV satellite service. I'm getting stuff like NBC at no cost.
DirectTV has always been digital. Cable is another subscription service, they are not covered by the ATSC mandates.
All indications that I see is that they are going to stick with it this time. Before, the market wasn't ready for it and the converter boxes for existing sets weren't affordable enough either.
The FCC is already very far along in prepping to sell that bandwidth. There is no one in a position of authority that's even talking about another delay.
I agree, not for several years. The current ATSC standard doesn't allow for it. The best that can be done is to make sure the video stream has proper, consistent 2:3 pull-down so that TV sets can deinterlace it properly into the original frames. Usually film-sourced video has that, but live cameras usually don't.
Doesn't cable have to move to all digital by Apr 2009, I thought everyone had to give up the 700mhz signal by the cut off date. I thought this was mandated by the FCC for everyone.
Just to clear up some preconceived notions, you do know that digital isn't necessarily better than analog, right? It's all about the bandwidth, I receive some digital channels that look a lot worse than my DivX collection, you can see the individual pixels so clearly it seems that you're looking at some good quality video on YouTube. Same thing goes for HD, most people will be spending big bucks on full HD when 99% of the time they will be looking at some crap looking image sent by a channel that didn't want to pay the full HD price.
Yes, I do know that analog doesn't always mean worse than digital. But for me, the digital reception is usually pretty good. Just for giggles, I told EyeTV to scan on the analog channels and they just don't hold a candle. They all have severe ghosting, static or other problems. Yuck. Some of the channels literally look like they are going through a video scrambler.
Doesn't cable have to move to all digital by Apr 2009, I thought everyone had to give up the 700mhz signal by the cut off date. I thought this was mandated by the FCC for everyone.
The mandate is for the airwaves. Cable sends its signals over wires, not through the air.
So I have been able to enable Time Machine to backup to a shared volume. The way it works is it creates a sparseimage file on the remote volume and then mounts it locally, creates HFS+ filesystem within it and uses it to back things up.
With this, I'm not sure why do they need the remote server to be Leopard: the image is handled by a local system, the remote system doesn't have much to do with it, as long as it allows to open the image file. Whatever happens within that image - it doesn't care, so it should be possible to do this using any remote server, via any protocol, be it Samba or AFP, or NFS or whatever. So I'm not sure what's the big deal and why Apple requires the server to be Leopard (other than to increase Leopard sales ).
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
Now the big talk is always the difference between 720p and 1080p people sending thousands more in some cases for 1080p when they have no clue what it even means.
Its kind of like gamers buying SLI 8800gtx video cards to get 200fps not realizing the human eye can not see past 30fps. Even better the ones that argue that point.
Not to mention the only thing that will handle 1080p is either HD-DVD of Blu-Ray, neither cable nor dish tv will broadcast anything above 1080i/720p.
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
1) The difference is not noticeable only on crappy DVs, that are not truly 1080p (nor 1080i) tvs. Most modern TVs do not support 1920x1080 resolution, and instead only have 1366x768 physical resolution, so yes, of course on these TVs you won't see the difference between 720p and 1080[ip], as they both will look like crap, 720 being upscaled to 768 and 1080 being downscaled to the same. On my Westinghouse 42" full HD monitor, which supports full 1920x1080 resolution, the difference is HUGE.
2) Cablevision offers a couple of channels in full 1080 glory. One of them was called, if I'm not mistaken, "INHD" or something like that. Then there was something like Travel Channel. And Discovery HD, I believe, is also in 1080. And those just off the top of my head, maybe there were others - I've only had it for about 2 months a year ago and then cancelled, as there was nothing worth paying nearly a hundred $$ a month for.
I don't think anyone is accusing them of being careful, but of selling a product and then removing features from it. Come on, not even Microsoft did that with Vista, some features might have been axed, but at least when you bought it you knew what to expect.
So you are saying it was working when the purchased copy arrived home and after you installed it they patched it off????
No way, it was turned off prior to selling it. They removed the feature from the site a few days ago. Your card was probably charged today or yesterday, so it was not sold until they charged the card.
I am another who purchased the Airport Extreme and had it ready to go in my home in anticipation of Leopard. We all use laptops and it made a lot more sense to do it wirelessly. This is very dissappointing.
Even if it did worked, it would have taken a long time to backup for the first time. Connect the drive to the laptop, let it backup for the first time, then disconnect it and move it to Airport, You will be happier after that.
Spoken like a true Apple salesman. Apple can't deliever so you start bashing Vista instead of addressing the reason issue, that Apple can't deliever as usual.
Comments
Really? On what do you base your opinion? Mine is based on my recent experience with Apple: I still can't use my Logitech USB webcam that was disabled due to a bug in 10.4.10. Apple's verified the bug, but no fix since JUNE! So, I have no faith on that one, and yes, I'm thinking straight.
And people like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. To use .Mac, Apple now says you need to run 10.4.10. But if you want to use your web cam, you need to use 10.4.9. What's a person to do?
And I'll repeat myself. Apple needs to learn how to be up-front on issues. Why waste people's time wondering what's going to not work, when it will (if ever), etc.
Really? On what do you base your opinion? Mine is based on my recent experience with Apple: I still can't use my Logitech USB webcam that was disabled due to a bug in 10.4.10. Apple's verified the bug, but no fix since JUNE! So, I have no faith on that one, and yes, I'm thinking straight.
I disagree with your assessment. Wireless TM is an important feature to Apple (at least their marketing would indicate such). The reasonable thing to conclude is that they were having some serious problems with it. Is it possible that these problems are insurmountable? -- perhaps, I guess. But it's more likely that they ran out of time and had to axe it for now.
The wireless TM feature is a great one, they're not going to let it die unless they have no other choice. The only thing that someone mentioned many posts ago that might hold back this feature showing up is if the high traffic over the AE(n) destroys the router. That I can buy; and you certainly wouldn't want your $200 router crapping out after 6 months (nor would Apple). These sorts of issues take time to build data, perhaps Apple just realised that this was a problem.
I don't think that Apple cares that much about your web-cam. The "home on iPod" would have been a better comparison. Am I being more level now? I still think that it's unreasonable to think that this won't show up soon.
I really don't think that's true anymore. I'm in a #50 market and ALL my local channels are digital, and it's been that way for at least a couple years. All the major networks have at least prime time in HD. Only the affiliates of the minor networks like the CW are SD-only, but they are digital.
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
Now the big talk is always the difference between 720p and 1080p people sending thousands more in some cases for 1080p when they have no clue what it even means.
Its kind of like gamers buying SLI 8800gtx video cards to get 200fps not realizing the human eye can not see past 30fps. Even better the ones that argue that point.
Not to mention the only thing that will handle 1080p is either HD-DVD of Blu-Ray, neither cable nor dish tv will broadcast anything above 1080i/720p.
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
Small features? Stayed on schedule?.. I have read alot of your posts and i have come to the conclusion that if Steve Jobs took a shit in a brown bag and tagged it the iDump you would find a reason to say it was great.
Haha... that was funny! At last someone who isn't willing to lick Job's shoes.
Whoever thinks that this issue will not be resolved quickly is not thinking straight. It's just like all of the people who complained that the iPhone is completely locked to third-party developers. Apple is working on the sdk now, and they will add wireless back-up soon. No one wasted any money on AE or external drives, because wireless TM is just being delayed until it's ready.
We're all just pissed because Apple doesn't say ANYTHING on the subject, they think we're all morons and won't realise the feature ever existed.
Spoken like a true Apple salesman. Apple can't deliever so you start bashing Vista instead of addressing the reason issue, that Apple can't deliever as usual.
For those of you that think that Apple TV is one of the worst pieces of s*it Apple has come up with since the puck mouse then you should have a look at the new offerings from EMTEC. It's Mac compatible, it can read a number of file formats (DivX included of course), and it can record TV programs directly onto the disk in MPEG 2. It also has a slot for SD cards so you can watch pictures on your big telly. You can buy it with different disk sizes (160GB to 500GB or even without a hard disk), and you can even connect an external disk to it. Oh, and it's far cheaper than Apple TV. The only letdowns is that it doesn't come with Wi-Fi, but you can connect it to a router through Ethernet, and that it doesn't have an HDMI output.
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
Just to be clear, I'm talking over the air using a TV antenna, not through the DirectTV satellite service. I'm getting stuff like NBC at no cost.
DirectTV has always been digital. Cable is another subscription service, they are not covered by the ATSC mandates.
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
All indications that I see is that they are going to stick with it this time. Before, the market wasn't ready for it and the converter boxes for existing sets weren't affordable enough either.
The FCC is already very far along in prepping to sell that bandwidth. There is no one in a position of authority that's even talking about another delay.
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
I agree, not for several years. The current ATSC standard doesn't allow for it. The best that can be done is to make sure the video stream has proper, consistent 2:3 pull-down so that TV sets can deinterlace it properly into the original frames. Usually film-sourced video has that, but live cameras usually don't.
I really don't think that's true anymore. I'm in a #50 market and ALL my local channels are digital, and it's been that way for at least a couple years. All the major networks have at least prime time in HD. Only the affiliates of the minor networks like the CW are SD-only, but they are digital.
Just to clear up some preconceived notions, you do know that digital isn't necessarily better than analog, right? It's all about the bandwidth, I receive some digital channels that look a lot worse than my DivX collection, you can see the individual pixels so clearly it seems that you're looking at some good quality video on YouTube. Same thing goes for HD, most people will be spending big bucks on full HD when 99% of the time they will be looking at some crap looking image sent by a channel that didn't want to pay the full HD price.
For those of you that think that Apple TV is one of the worst pieces of s*it Apple has come up with since the puck mouse then you should have a look at the new offerings from EMTEC. It's Mac compatible, it can read a number of file formats (DivX included of course), and it can record TV programs directly onto the disk in MPEG 2. It also has a slot for SD cards so you can watch pictures on your big telly. You can buy it with different disk sizes (160GB to 500GB or even without a hard disk), and you can even connect an external disk to it. Oh, and it's far cheaper than Apple TV. The only letdowns is that it doesn't come with Wi-Fi, but you can connect it to a router through Ethernet, and that it doesn't have an HDMI output.
I guess you are referring to the EMTEC Movie Cube and Movie Cube -R. The only thing I have to ask is, do they not understand what a cube is?
http://www.emtec-international.com/e...DISQUES%20DURS
Just to be clear, I'm talking over the air using a TV antenna, not through the DirectTV satellite service. I'm getting stuff like NBC at no cost.
DirectTV has always been digital. Cable is another subscription service, they are not covered by the ATSC mandates.
All indications that I see is that they are going to stick with it this time. Before, the market wasn't ready for it and the converter boxes for existing sets weren't affordable enough either.
The FCC is already very far along in prepping to sell that bandwidth. There is no one in a position of authority that's even talking about another delay.
I agree, not for several years. The current ATSC standard doesn't allow for it. The best that can be done is to make sure the video stream has proper, consistent 2:3 pull-down so that TV sets can deinterlace it properly into the original frames. Usually film-sourced video has that, but live cameras usually don't.
Doesn't cable have to move to all digital by Apr 2009, I thought everyone had to give up the 700mhz signal by the cut off date. I thought this was mandated by the FCC for everyone.
I guess you are referring to the EMTEC Movie Cube and Movie Cube -R. The only thing I have to ask is, do they not understand what a cube is?
http://www.emtec-international.com/e...DISQUES%20DURS
Yeah, that's the one... funny I didn't think about the cube thing before!
Just to clear up some preconceived notions, you do know that digital isn't necessarily better than analog, right? It's all about the bandwidth, I receive some digital channels that look a lot worse than my DivX collection, you can see the individual pixels so clearly it seems that you're looking at some good quality video on YouTube. Same thing goes for HD, most people will be spending big bucks on full HD when 99% of the time they will be looking at some crap looking image sent by a channel that didn't want to pay the full HD price.
Yes, I do know that analog doesn't always mean worse than digital. But for me, the digital reception is usually pretty good. Just for giggles, I told EyeTV to scan on the analog channels and they just don't hold a candle. They all have severe ghosting, static or other problems. Yuck. Some of the channels literally look like they are going through a video scrambler.
Doesn't cable have to move to all digital by Apr 2009, I thought everyone had to give up the 700mhz signal by the cut off date. I thought this was mandated by the FCC for everyone.
The mandate is for the airwaves. Cable sends its signals over wires, not through the air.
With this, I'm not sure why do they need the remote server to be Leopard: the image is handled by a local system, the remote system doesn't have much to do with it, as long as it allows to open the image file. Whatever happens within that image - it doesn't care, so it should be possible to do this using any remote server, via any protocol, be it Samba or AFP, or NFS or whatever. So I'm not sure what's the big deal and why Apple requires the server to be Leopard (other than to increase Leopard sales
True if you are using direct tv then all the channels are digital but not HD, I still use cable and a % of my channels are still analog.
What I was trying to say is there were people buying 7k HDTV's 5 years ago and the FCC keeps pushing out the date to go fully digital, now set mid 2009 if that holds.
Now the big talk is always the difference between 720p and 1080p people sending thousands more in some cases for 1080p when they have no clue what it even means.
Its kind of like gamers buying SLI 8800gtx video cards to get 200fps not realizing the human eye can not see past 30fps. Even better the ones that argue that point.
Not to mention the only thing that will handle 1080p is either HD-DVD of Blu-Ray, neither cable nor dish tv will broadcast anything above 1080i/720p.
I could be wrong but I believe that will always be the case, i'm fairly certain HDTV broadcasts will never be in 1080p.
1) The difference is not noticeable only on crappy DVs, that are not truly 1080p (nor 1080i) tvs. Most modern TVs do not support 1920x1080 resolution, and instead only have 1366x768 physical resolution, so yes, of course on these TVs you won't see the difference between 720p and 1080[ip], as they both will look like crap, 720 being upscaled to 768 and 1080 being downscaled to the same. On my Westinghouse 42" full HD monitor, which supports full 1920x1080 resolution, the difference is HUGE.
2) Cablevision offers a couple of channels in full 1080 glory. One of them was called, if I'm not mistaken, "INHD" or something like that. Then there was something like Travel Channel. And Discovery HD, I believe, is also in 1080. And those just off the top of my head, maybe there were others - I've only had it for about 2 months a year ago and then cancelled, as there was nothing worth paying nearly a hundred $$ a month for.
Here is a link to my quick easy workaround to getting airport disk working with time machine.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...99#post4389999
There was a reason why they turned it off. How much do you love your data?
Pull the drive from the wireless base, connect it to the computer, it will work and also do the initial backup faster.
In a couple of weeks there will likely be a patch to enable it if they have found the problem.
There is a problem there, otherwise Apple would not have pulled the feature.
I don't think anyone is accusing them of being careful, but of selling a product and then removing features from it. Come on, not even Microsoft did that with Vista, some features might have been axed, but at least when you bought it you knew what to expect.
So you are saying it was working when the purchased copy arrived home and after you installed it they patched it off????
No way, it was turned off prior to selling it. They removed the feature from the site a few days ago. Your card was probably charged today or yesterday, so it was not sold until they charged the card.
YOU smell of poo...
...no YOU smell of poo
Grow up. We're trying to have an adult discussion here.
Hard to do that if you are dealing with cry babies. LOL
I am another who purchased the Airport Extreme and had it ready to go in my home in anticipation of Leopard. We all use laptops and it made a lot more sense to do it wirelessly. This is very dissappointing.
Even if it did worked, it would have taken a long time to backup for the first time. Connect the drive to the laptop, let it backup for the first time, then disconnect it and move it to Airport, You will be happier after that.
Spoken like a true Apple salesman. Apple can't deliever so you start bashing Vista instead of addressing the reason issue, that Apple can't deliever as usual.
Vista does not need anyone to bash it, Bill.