john-useless

appleinsideruser said:

john-useless said:

Does iPhone mirroring to macOS Sequoia work when the iPhone is in landscape (sideways) orientation, and does it work in landscape when using the iPhone's camera app (or a third-party app like Kino) to film videos?

Look at the screen shot at the start of this article for an answer to your first question. Looks like yes.

9 to 5 Mac posted a video about iPhone mirroring which partially answered my question. The video did not confirm whether one can use an iPhone in landscape (sideways) orientation and have its screen mirrored that way to a Mac. But 9 to 5's video did say that the iPhone's camera and microphone are not available during mirroring — which was a specific question I had. I wanted to know if I could use the iPhone's Camera app to film video in landscape orientation while controlling it through macOS Sequoia's mirroring feature … and the answer is clearly no, because the iPhone's camera & mic don't work during mirroring.

I just want to take a moment to lament the passing of the tapered thickness (thinness) that has, until now, always been associated with the MacBook Air name.

I can't argue with Apple's decision to reimagine the M2 MacBook Air as a uniform 0.44-inch thin design, especially given that they shaved a full 20% from its volume as compared to the M1 MacBook Air. But I will still miss the wedge-shaped design of all previous-generation Airs, which became absolutely iconic and influenced the shape of thin-and-light notebooks throughout the industry for well over a decade. Apple didn't invent the wedge shape for notebooks, but they perfected it with the Intel- and M1-based Airs. The design certainly earned a revered place in computing history.

I'll tell ya what, though: Speaking of iconic designs, I would be willing to pay a (slight) penalty in thinness if it meant we could still have a glowing Apple logo.

cgWerks said:

Can someone explain the pricing of this display to me?

As others have already replied with good technical comparisons, I won't repeat that but will just share my story. I've had 27-inch iMacs at home & work for nearly a decade as my primary computers in each location — 2012 and 2013 models, respectively, both of which are pre-Retina models. I also have third-party 27-inch external monitors. This size screen works exceptionally well for me. I have been determined that when it came time to replace both iMacs, I wanted the same size screens but in Retina quality. 4K monitors (the Retina equivalent of old 1920 x 1080 HD displays) just don't have enough pixels for my needs; I really need 5K.

For my office, I recently replaced the old iMac with a MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021 — with the top-of-line M1 Max) plus an LG UltraFine 5K Display (the 27-inch model, which of course is Retina quality) and an OWC Thunderbolt Dock (the newest Thunderbolt 4 model). I already have older external speakers & a subwoofer, plus additional external monitors, all of which I've connected via the dock to the new MacBook Pro. The LG 5K display is my "main" monitor.

To have roughly the equivalent at home — a 27-inch 5K Retina monitor and a Thunderbolt (3 or 4) dock equivalent, I could have bought another LG UltraFine 5K Display and another OWC Thunderbolt Dock … but those items together cost nearly as much as the new Apple Studio Display, which has higher quality speakers & a higher quality webcam and eliminates my need for a separate dock (your mileage may vary). I also like having the ability to buy AppleCare+ warranty coverage for $50/year that will likely protect my investment for many years into the future at reasonable cost (and well beyond LG's warranty).

Yes, the new Apple display is pricey … but in my case, it actually feels like an acceptable (and perhaps even good) value. I just ordered one (with the default stand and the standard glass). For the short term, I will bring home my new MacBook Pro from the office to connect to it when working at home. Perhaps in another six months or a year, I anticipate ordering a new Mac Studio (or perhaps a Mac mini with an M1 Pro processor, if Apple releases such a version in the future) to permanently connect to it at home.

appleinsideruser said:

john-useless said:

Does iPhone mirroring to macOS Sequoia work when the iPhone is in landscape (sideways) orientation, and does it work in landscape when using the iPhone's camera app (or a third-party app like Kino) to film videos?

Look at the screen shot at the start of this article for an answer to your first question. Looks like yes.

Thanks, but the screen shot at the top of this article is not the answer for which I'm looking — my question could have been phrased more clearly. The screen shot shows the iPhone's own screen in landscape (sideways) but it's simply showing iOS's standby mode … but the iPhone mirror on the Mac's screen is in portrait (vertical). It's the latter about which I'm asking. I'm hoping that when the Camera app is in use for recording video in landscape orientation (or any other app that supports landscape orientation) that it mirrors on the Mac side in landscape view as well. All of the examples shown above (and elsewhere that I've seen so far) show the mirrored iPhone only in portrait (vertical) orientation on the Mac.

Since you (AppleInsider) didn't specify that the article was specifically about third-party mice for Macs, I'm surprised that the Apple Magic Mouse didn't get a mention — at least to compare how these third-party mice differ in features and/or design versus Apple's Magic Mouse. Love it (as I do) or hate it (as many do), the Magic Mouse has been the standard mouse for Macs since its first version arrived in late 2009.

One feature that has kept me a fan of the Magic Mouse all these years is its Multi-Touch surface, which allows for scrolling of a Mac's on-screen content exactly like an iPhone. Multi-Touch on the Magic Mouse also allows for additional features like swiping between pages and/or applications (which I use constantly) and quick access to Mission Control (which isn't a critical feature to me). I've enjoyed using Apple's Magic Mouse since day 1.

Yes, that Apple placed the Lightning charging port on the bottom in the current-gen design is silly — but given that the mouse only needs to be charged every couple of months (in my experience), this has never bothered me. The benefits of Multi-Touch far outweigh the downside of having to flip it over to recharge. (I'm hoping for an improved design when Apple finally switches it to USB-C.)

If Apple's Magic Mouse is physically uncomfortable for you to use, well … no argument there. For me, it has always been perfectly comfortable. I've got several Macs at home and work plus a Magic Mouse for each (including for my MacBook Pro).

I've always wondered why no third-party's mouse attempts to replicate and/or improve on the Magic Mouse's Multi-Touch feature. Does Apple not allow third parties access to the appropriate APIs?

Like live theater, there's always something magic and electric about live presentations when things go well and the audience reacts with delight, surprise, and approval. Apple has had plenty of famous live demos — and a handful of infamous ones, too.

I don't necessarily want to see the return of live demos by third-party developers or live music performances to Apple keynotes, as too often either the presenter was not particularly compelling or the segue to/from those performances was awkward. I don't even necessarily want to see the return of live demos by Apple's own people (as in the Steve Jobs days) because Apple's recent prerecorded demos of new products have been produced so beautifully that I'd miss them.

A hybrid approach would be great, in my view. I'd like to see Tim Cook back on stage as the master of ceremonies for a live audience, delivering Apple's wide-angle viewpoint and introducing various Apple staffers to do focused product announcements. If the product demos themselves are slick, prerecorded videos, fine by me — prerecorded videos are likely more informative to the countless viewers watching online than the live on-stage demos were.

When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPhone? Magic. When Tim Cook opened their October 2018 event to an enthusiastic live audience in New York City? Electrifying. When Phil Schiller said "Can't innovate anymore, my ass" and the audience rewarded him with laughter and sustained applause? Quite entertaining.

I would like Apple's keynotes to have at least some live aspects because moments like those are worth seeing and remembering.

Does iPhone mirroring to macOS Sequoia work when the iPhone is in landscape (sideways) orientation, and does it work in landscape when using the iPhone's camera app (or a third-party app like Kino) to film videos?

Intel's goals kicked off in 2012, and, since then, the NUC has been a stable, if not super popular, option.

I changed careers nearly a decade ago after more than two decades in information technology, mostly doing end-user support of Windows PCs (though Mac always was and is my personal choice). Even though I've been away from most things Microsoft & Windows for that long (thankfully!), I still read various technology-based websites daily. But in all that time, I had quite honestly never heard of the Intel NUC until this story.

Despite countless "Intel inside" ads during the last decade, did Intel ever throw any marketing support behind the product? That the NUC even existed was apparently a well-kept secret.

I've been a Mac user since the original 1984 model … but benchmarks in recent years confuse me, given the nature of multi-core machines these days, not to mention performance vs. efficiency cores, etc. Consider these two new Mac models:

• The Mac Studio with the base M4 Max processor has a 14-core CPU with 10 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores, plus a 32-core GPU.
• The Mac Studio with the base M3 Ultra processor has a 28-core CPU with 20 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores, plus a 60-core GPU.

I understand the idea that a lot of software basically gets its work done with the CPU and that only some software is written to get its work done with the GPU. I also understand the idea that each generation of processor does its work faster — thus, M4 processors will have higher single-core scores than comparable M3 processors.

But unless those M3 processors are far, far slower than M4 processors (which isn't the case — we're not talking M1 versus M4 here), wouldn't the model with the M3 Ultra outperform the model with the M4 Max every time because the M3 Ultra has twice as many cores? I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that macOS more or less hides the number of cores from software — that is, an app sends instructions to the CPU once, and macOS takes care of giving that work to all of the cores available to it on a given machine.

I have this image in my mind of horses pulling two wagon trains full of cargo (equal amounts in each train) across the plains. One wagon train has 14 horses, and they are younger and stronger. The other wagon train has 28 horses. They're a bit weaker and more tired … but even so, they're not that much weaker, and there are twice as many of them! Wouldn't the 28-horse team (the M3 Ultra) beat the 14-horse team (the M4 Max) every time? (I suppose it's not as simple as that.)

My use case: I do a lot of editing in Final Cut Pro, mostly HD but some 4K, and some of the projects are 30 minutes long. Is it worth it for me to buy a Mac Studio with M3 Ultra? Twice as many horses which aren't that much weaker…

cia said:

Did Ringo play drums and Paul play guitar or bass on the re-recorded music backing Lennon's vocals? If not is it really a Beatles song or more of a John Lennon song?

Yes, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney recently recorded their parts for "Now and Then." George Harrison recorded a guitar part for the song back in 1995. To me, this is a true Beatles song.

It would be reasonable to argue that John Lennon is not truly "original" in this recording given that software was used to create a clean audio track of his vocals, removing Lennon's simultaneously-recorded piano performance. In other words, is this essentially an "authorized deepfake?" But given that the vocal track used here was apparently made from his 1977 cassette recording (or if not from it, at least to very closely duplicate it), and also that Paul, Ringo, and the families of John and George were all involved in the making of "Now and Then," my feeling is that this song is very much an authentic, original Beatles song.

As for the AI-based deepfakes that will likely be made in "the style of the Beatles" 20 or 25 years from now when they've all passed … not so much.