- Last Active
Raskin’s original vision of the Mac sucked. It would have been text based with no mouse and no GUI.
The Canon CAT was his vision and lacked GUI and mouse. He may have been to Xerox PARC first but completely rejected everything they learned.
The one button mouse was obviously the wrong choice given that everyone can keep track of what two buttons do...IF it was his contribution, and some folks dispute that, it was another poor one.
Raskin also had a tendency to “embellish” his accomplishments. He, as Andy once commented, was NOT the father of the mac but it’s strange uncle...one with a nearsighted vision of where computing would go.
He’s another example of an engineer under Jobs that did well at Apple and never did anything really relevant again after...and IMHO his primary contribution to the Max was hiring Atkinson and promoting Hertzfeld from service to development.
The truth is: The U.S. comprises less than a third of the world's GDP and is very replaceable by the other 2/3's.
The truth is when our economy takes a hit so does everyone else's in a big way. Remove the US from the equation and the global economy would collapse for years. It's like removing the 3rd leg from a 3 legged stool because while the US is only 24% of the Global GDP it impacts EVERYONE else. A hard Brexit will impact a lot of countries...with the EU as one the bigger losers...and the UK is relatively small.
MplsP said:GeorgeBMac said:MplsP said:The iPhone 6 is an old model - first released in 2014 and sales stopped in 2016, so the phone is almost 3 years old at a minimum. The article doesn’t say exactly how old the phone was, but from the description, I would suspect that it was a hand-me-down device the kids were using to play games and watch videos. If this is the case, the battery was likely pretty old and may have been ‘abused’ somewhat. I’ve seen plenty of devices for which the battery is dead and kids just leave them plugged in constantly.
iPhone fires are quite unusual so it makes me wonder if there was other damage and/or a defective charger being used - both of these could lead to the battery overheating. GIven the age, it’s also possible that it had a defective replacement battery installed. Even considering this, though, you never want to have a device explode like this.
EngDev said:nht said:EngDev said:
Whether her chest would be in focus or not in a real DSLR depends on how busty she is. Not very so likely in focus.
The Note 8 is obviously less aggressive as seen in this comparison where the iPhone gets it more right but the Note doesn't
Often pros do additional post processing to make the eyes pop even more.
Eyes in focus, ears and shirt not.
Eyes in focus, ears and blouse not. The DoF is an inch or two deep at most.
Post processing includes upping the exposure just for the iris to enhance eye colors, increasing sharpness and contrast, etc, cleaning up the whites of the eyes, artificially adding light reflection or enhancing the light reflection in the eyes.
In basic portraiture you focus on the eyes.
Saying that the iPhone focuses too much on the face for portraiture is plain stupid.
The primary criticism for that iPhone 7 shot is that it missed focus...not that it focused too much on the face. It actually got the blur correct but the eyes and face are a bit muddy focused. Since the iPhone nailed focus in other shots I mark that down as user error.
Frankly, the entire piece from Mac World is shoddy. The model is posed differently for each phone. Adam, despite being "Video Director & Photographer, MacWorld", apparently doesn't own a DSLR with a prime lens to shoot for reference.
Adding a reference would have taken a few extra moments...it's literally "hold the pose" Snap, switch, snap, switch, snap. Not let me be a dumbass and shoot each camera in series and then end up with different poses, distance and worse...lighting.
What did we learn from Adam's comparisons? That he doesn't actually know how to run photographic comparisons.
TL;DR; Its called Portrait Mode. Focusing on the face is entirely the point.
madan said:The lowest end Mini has an i3 that trades with a 2400g...a 150 dollar CPU. Hardly a world beater in an 800 dollar computer.
The DDR4 in a Mini isn't 3200. It's 2666 which is fast by Mac standards but isn't even the fastest on the market.
The only great part about the Mini is the fact that it's:
A. Small & stylish in a nice aluminum box with excellent heat management through shared blowers, proper air routing, software cooling profiles and thermal skin dissipation.
B. It has that insane motherboard design with fantastically forward thinking IO (thunderbolt-enabled USB-C ahoy!).
Beyond that, you mentioned it. It uses IGP. The issue isn't whether Mini purchasers need it. It's whether Apple charges people like the Mini *has* that grunt. Which it doesn't have.
A 2400g, some fast RAM, a nice PCIE SSD on a mini ITX would be about twice the size. Sure. And no Mac OS X. And you'd lose 2 or 3 USB C ports. But you'd also chip 400 dollars on a computer that could tie the Mini on half the tasks and run rings around it on the other half.
Again, Mac OS is the best OS on the market. Apple hardware engineering is great. But is it worth 100% markup great? I wonder. They're charging the same that a Dell with a Core i5/twice the fast RAM/and a GTX 1060 costs. And those two systems aren't even in the same solar system, much less planet.
So yeah. Mazda. Ferrari. Fits.
The NSX used the engine from the Legend
Lamborghini and Audi collaborated on the V10 engine used in the Gallardo and Huracan.
Pagani Huayra uses a Mercedes V12 engine.
Aston Martin Vantage uses a Mercedes V8
The Lous Evora uses a Toyota engine.
The i3 Mini you are whining about is faster than the 2017 15" MBP Core i7-7920HQ in single core and faster than the 2017 21: iMac Core i5-7500 in multicore.
That leads me to believe you know very little about supercars or computers.
Mike Wuerthele said:nht said:AppleInsider said:
The market appears to be there for a $499 Mac mini, so the the only two questions left is whether Apple wants to enter that price-point again, or is capable of manufacturing a machine for that price. It certainly managed to build them right up to about last Tuesday when it finally replaced the $499 Mac mini with this new design.
Apple is already going to lose more valuable iMac sales to Mini sales as the new minis have very high bang for the buck.
And did Apple lose the edu market to Chromebooks or Google Docs? You aren't going to beat $200 chromebooks with a $500 Mac when the $300 iPads can't make a significant dent.
You still need to show that the $500 price point would sufficiently increase Mac sales so that it's a positive outcome even counting service income. What's more, the buyers of $500 PCs are likely not as good a demographic for services than $800 PC buyers...just like the buyers of $100 Android phones are not as good a demographic for services as $600+ iPhone buyers.
So that's still not a good business case for introducing a $500 mini and trashing your $1200 iMac sales when the $300 iPad already exists and is positioned within the Apple product line for the edu/low end market.
And iOS devices trounce MacOS devices in volume. So service income is largely dominated by iPads (ie cars) than Macs (trucks) anyway.
lorin schultz said:DAalseth said:It's my understanding that the HomePod plays whatever source it's fed, then listens to the echo coming back and fine tunes its output to make what it's hearing match the source as closely as possible. Would that even work in an anechoic chamber? Would you get anything like best performance if it could not hear itself?
The automatic adjustment in the HomePod is supposed to compensate for the standing waves that occur when the sound waves bounce off a surface. In an anechoic chamber there are no reflections, thus nothing for the HomePod to "fix."
Traditional speakers are measured in an anechoic chamber because the phase effects from the sound waves bouncing off the walls, ceiling and floor affect the response readings. The readings wind up telling you how the speaker will sound only placed in that exact position in that exact room at exactly one listening position. That result will be different in every room and position within any given room.
The point of testing in an anechoic chamber is to establish an objective assessment of what the speaker is CAPABLE of doing without the effects of some arbitrary room polluting the results. A "real world" test isn't possible because no two listening situations are the same. Measuring a speaker where I will use it tells you nothing about how it will behave in YOUR situation. That's why it's so important to audition speakers at home before making a final decision.
If the HomePod actually does what Apple claims -- automatically compensate for room effects -- it shouldn't be necessary to isolate it in an anechoic chamber for testing, since it theoretically should sound the same in ANY room. So far the jury is still out on how well it actually does that in real life. It may be more marketing than magic.
Anechoic chamber testing has value for certain types of speakers and less for others. Using chamber tests won't answer whether bipole, dipole or direct radiating (monopole) speakers work best for surround sound. Any speaker design that depends on reflection for part of its performance will get crippled in a chamber. Only front facing, direct radiating designs should be compared to each other based on chamber testing.
CloudTalkin said:foregoneconclusion said:I've never understood why the differences in the A series chips is always downplayed with "you won't notice unless they're side by side" etc. when differences in Intel chips in laptops is rarely treated that way. Laptop chips always have the how-many-months-since-the-last-refresh attached to them like it's vitally important to get a next generation chip to run the exact same legacy software people have been running for years and years.
A review or comparison is typically where you'll see the "you won't notice unless..." and it's entirely appropriate for it to be included there. By and large, it's mostly true. If I tell you my new app opens 15% faster than my old app it's not going to mean anything without proper context. My old app opens in 0.5 sec. So that would mean my new app opens in 0.425 sec. Without a side by side comparison there'd be no way for you to gauge 15% faster. More importantly, laptop reviews typically include benchmarks that show the side by side comparions so the argument really doesn't hold up.
specs matter later when ios15 is slow on an A10 with 2GB RAM and ios16 is not supported for these iPads but are for the ones that have 3GB ram and an a12.
The mini is likely far more future proof than the iPad.