iTunes yes but you could not mirror the desktop, programs, games, web browsers, media not in iTunes, etc etc
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mountain Lion doesn't seem like a real 'OS' upgrade
- Thread starter mrsir2009
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iTunes yes but you could not mirror the desktop, programs, games, web browsers, media not in iTunes, etc etc
As far as I'm concerned, that only applies to iTunes purchases (or perhaps video downloads played through iTunes as well). That doesn't apply to video streaming sites like Hulu, Crunchy Roll, etc. It's also convenient for games and desktop mirroring. There's a lot more to media than iTunes. Anyway, the mirroring looks fine streaming from my iMac to to my 32 inch LCD display. Videos play with no lag and appear just as they do on my computer. I'm not saying it doesn't have issues, but I haven't really experienced any of them--and this is just a developer preview too. It's not like Airplay is something I would buy a new Mac and an Apple TV for, but already being the owner of both makes the affordable upgrade to ML a huge convenience for me.
Unless they changed something, the resolution is matched to your Macbook device or is some oddball resolution. So if you're running a 1440x900 MBA, your TV mirror looks messed up and there is no way to get 1080p or even 720p on the TV. The options listed are oddballs so the picture looks funny. This covers any application mirroring or web videos (Hulu, CBS.com, etc). It is a failure in my book.
The only time this doesn't matter is when you use iTunes to display a video - which isn't new anyways. Then the output is only the video and the resolution is correct and looks great.
This is my original post about it:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/14822092/
Short but to the point.
Last edited:
I've never seen a definition for what constitutes a "real OS upgrade".
While there are some features that I have no interest in, I respect the fact that many others may like what I don't.
From my perspective it's what Apple improves, not the quantity of new features.
Overall for my use, it appears that Mountain Lion will suit me better than Lion.
While there are some features that I have no interest in, I respect the fact that many others may like what I don't.
From my perspective it's what Apple improves, not the quantity of new features.
Overall for my use, it appears that Mountain Lion will suit me better than Lion.
I come from a workplace where most have something like a smartphone, tablet and/or a notebook. The amount of all-in-ones is huge. We do the same thing when something breaks as with the normal tower models: we try to get it fixed on the spot and if we are unable we'll move it to our lab. If this is going to be a convenience the user will get a temporary replacement so he or she can get on with whatever he/she does. This also provides us with more time to fiddle with the problem and get it resolved. Very handy when things get very complex. But most of all, users are more satisfied because a problem with their machine/device does not disrupt their schedule completely.
So yes, it definitely is in how you manage and not in what product you use. Whenever we order something new we have a surplus of say 2 to 3% specifically for temporary replacements. This way we buy ourselves time and make our users more satisfied. Simply put: if all-in-ones (or any other device) are an issue with maintenance/replacement you are doing it wrong.
You can swap the drive, you can create an image and restore it as well as many other things. What you are describing here poses more problems because there are many single point of failures that have been created. This puts the business at great risk. Or in other words: management is the problem here, not the product itself: only how you deal with the product.
It highly depends on what the model is aimed at. Notebooks aimed at business use tend to be a little bit easier to open up but the fact remains that notebooks in general are a pita. They are about as hard as an iMac.
If you need to upgrade the device afterwards than you didn't do your homework properly before buying it or you are simply desperately trying to stretch a devices lifetime. Computers have a max lifetime. After a couple of years it is cheaper to replace them than to upgrade them since they are written off. The glossy panel is more of a personal thing (I for one strongly dislike them and think they should be banned for medical reasons (they are really bad for ones health because it is more fatiguing for your eyes)).
Btw, if you want upgradability you don't buy any other product but the Mac Pro. It is the only Mac that is actually upgradable. This is what I meant with doing your homework properly before buying something.
What do they do when the psu fails? What do they do when the CPU burns because of a failing fan? What if 1 or more disk drives crash? Those are all components that will stop a computer from working at all causing the exact same downtime they were trying to avoid by switching from iMac to Mac Pro/something else. In other words, they haven't thought it through at all and simply moved to something else. Unfortunately it won't solve the problem(s) they are trying to solve.
This is completely incorrect. iMacs can be replaced on the spot like any other machine. Only its components can not be replaced on the spot like many other devices such as notebooks. When it comes to machines like Mac Pro's one needs to have replacement parts on site. As a former Genius you are well aware that this is absolutely impossible for Apple products due to Apple's policy of user replaceable parts vs non-user replaceable parts. This causes simple items like hdd's/ssd's and memory to be on site but things like a processor try, cpu, etc. require the machine to be sent to an AAPR to be repaired. Most brands will have something like this. This is why lots of businesses simply replace the entire machine so the broken one can be RMA'd.
No, in the end business management is showing once more why they are not in the IT department: they fail at it. Moving back to something else is not the solution because the problems remain. Again, these are not iMac problems, these are generic problems for nearly any device on the market.
Which confirms what I already said: components on site for Apple devices is simply absolutely impossible.
Most businesses write off machines in 3 years. After 3 years they buy new stuff. Which is exactly why most contracts only last up to 3 years. If you spent a lot of money you can get 5 year contracts. The contracts for longer periods are for special machines like servers, mainframes.
Because that would be the time frame in which you write off computers.
Businesses require different things which mostly comes down to management stuff (think SLA). What you are mentioning here is only for people who want a more affordable Mac Pro. I've never seen prices be a big problem with businesses because they know they'll make money with it. It is the consumer who is very picky with pricing, they are the ones that scream that Macs are overly expensive and they can get a Windows machine for half the price (they don't look at the quality which is halved as well).
I think we are going to see yearly releases of Mac OSX which Mountain Lion is going to come during summertime. To correspond with yearly iOS updates.
I don't understand what you are getting at here (or your original post). What looks messed up? How would you expect it to mirror your display at a different "resolution" than your display?
Airplay simply up- or down-converts the resolution of your Mac to the output of your AppleTV. You can match your Mac to the output resolution of your AppleTV (at the Mac's aspect ratio) in order to maximize the quality on the TV.
I would expect an option to display only on the TV at 1080p or an option to display 720p on my laptop (with black bars) and on the TV. Neither are available but both would make the TV experience good - the latter at a loss of quality on the laptop.
What is the point of mirroring to a TV if the resolution is not an aspect ratio matching the TV? I'm not mirroring to the TV for black bars - I'm mirroring for a full screen experience, otherwise I'd just use my laptop.
EDIT: To be clear, I would expect the same options I have with the DP->HDMI connector without the connector. I mean, that's the reason for it... to lose the wires.
Okay. You made it sound like something was not working correctly and the picture was distorted. You would just like the option to match the aspect ratio in addition to the resolution of the TV.
By using/testing it frequently on a daily basis? At this stage in development it is noticeably faster than Lion. Safari has potential as well. Seems like a new rendering engine altogether.
I testing it to and i haven't noticed any difference with lion 10.7.4 only in terms of speed.
I don't care what you call ML. Service Pack, new OS or OS Blunt.
As long as it performs I'm happy. Lion is not bad for me but i'm running new hardware. Even then though I feel there can be a lot more polish.
ML should fix a lot of what ails most people about Lion.
As long as it performs I'm happy. Lion is not bad for me but i'm running new hardware. Even then though I feel there can be a lot more polish.
ML should fix a lot of what ails most people about Lion.
Whatever we come up with in this thread. Apple engineers thought of months if not years ago. At this point Mountain Lion doesn't need much in new features other than proper iCloud support for documents and updates to the many frameworks and architectures already in place.
Speaking of iCloud this is good news.
iCloud Key Value sync boosted from 64kb to 1Mbyte
To me this means Apple is confident that Key Value data is syncing properly on the backend enough to raise the amount by a factor of 16.
Speaking of iCloud this is good news.
iCloud Key Value sync boosted from 64kb to 1Mbyte
To me this means Apple is confident that Key Value data is syncing properly on the backend enough to raise the amount by a factor of 16.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, there you go again. Where do you get this stuff from? Hilarious
"Years ago?" Come on. Nobody in this ever-changing tech world sees that far down the line much less puts those ideas in motion.
A little too much Apple worship tends to cloud one's judgement and common sense.
your right well except the years ago part but it was surely thought of months ago so too late to ask for new features now, actually pretty stupid to make and comments or suggestions about an OS on macrumors as apple could care less about what we type on here
What I mean is that often you have people that say
"When is Apple going to fix memory management?" like Apple hasn't identified the issue and has people working on the issue.
Every OS comes with new API and old API that is deprecated and the goal is to shift developers to new stuff that performs better.
"When is Apple going to fix memory management?" like Apple hasn't identified the issue and has people working on the issue.
Every OS comes with new API and old API that is deprecated and the goal is to shift developers to new stuff that performs better.
That's a funny spin on it (a factor of 16!!) when Google Drive syncs files up to 10 gigabytes large.
That's a funny spin on it (a factor of 16!!) when Google Drive syncs files up to 10 gigabytes large.
iCloud will sync larger files but they break it down by
Key Value - small stuff that typically would be delivered in document form.
Documents - the larger stuff we typical manage in our filesystem.
Apple's simply improving the max payload of those non document pieces of data giving developers some freedom. A good thing
That's a funny spin on it (a factor of 16!!) when Google Drive syncs files up to 10 gigabytes large.
Are you sure you understand what he said?
Are you sure you understand what he said?
Obviously clueless people dont understand.
Are you sure you understand what he said?
Uh, yes. Exclaiming that they have increased sync capabilities by a factor of 16 to 1MB is kind of goofy considering how tiny the amount of data is. It is not a huge engineering feat, and it's funny to see someone using it as an example of the quality of iCloud. That is all.
I know exactly the difference between different data types, people shouldn't assume that everyone on this board is just a consumer. That is not the case.
Any sync technology that works is a huge engineering feat. The majority of the small developers that have written their own sync technology fail in my experience. Writing robust sync technology is up there with writing properly threaded and concurrent applications. Really on the best need apply.
With Key Value storage being so small It's likely easier to munge in the sync process. If Apple's raising the limit for KV sync it could be a harbinger of their confidence in iCloud's integrity.
I could be wrong. I could be write but more breathing room for developers for KV is a positive thing from any angle.
But then why you said "when Google Drive syncs files up to 10 gigabytes"? That has nothing to do with what he said. And anyone can claim anything afterward. You're not convincing.
Mac OS 10.7 to Mac OS 10.8
The huge change you're looking for is Mac OS 11.
Comparing Windows 8 and Mountain Lion is apples and oranges (lol)(but srsly).
Additionally
I have a sense that Apple are now gonna do once a year $30 updates rather than bigger ones separated over a few years.
When it's ready, Mac OS 11 (probably won't be named that) will come out at a WWDC in the future. I will guess 2013 though.
Remember though, that Apple are hugely optimistic about the forward progress of the iPad and foresee it overtaking the consumer PC market, so their focus will remain solely on improving iOS.
I predict in 5 years time, the only people to have desktop computers will be those that need more grunt in their systems, a la video editors, software engineers etc.
The rest of us peasants will play our future games on the iPad (think beyond Angry Birds to something as big as (but not) WoW or Diablo 3 entirely on the iPad).
Cute.
I have a sense that Apple are now gonna do once a year $30 updates rather than bigger ones separated over a few years.
When it's ready, Mac OS 11 (probably won't be named that) will come out at a WWDC in the future. I will guess 2013 though.
Remember though, that Apple are hugely optimistic about the forward progress of the iPad and foresee it overtaking the consumer PC market, so their focus will remain solely on improving iOS.
I predict in 5 years time, the only people to have desktop computers will be those that need more grunt in their systems, a la video editors, software engineers etc.
The rest of us peasants will play our future games on the iPad (think beyond Angry Birds to something as big as (but not) WoW or Diablo 3 entirely on the iPad).
Cute.