Recent Comments:
Canon EOS 7D gets high marks all around {Engadget}
Nov 8th 2009 12:42PM Yeah, I got the 28-135 bundle here (got it at BestBuy and it was all they had). I expected to sell the lens on eBay and get the 15-85, but the 28-135 is worth more than the $200 they're going for now. I suppose I should just do it and get it over with, but I also want to wait for the 15-85 to come down to earth in terms of pricing.
FWIW, yes the 18-135 makes more sense (newer/wider), but the reviews on the lens that I've read slot it in below the 28-135 in IQ AND it doesn't have USM AF. I'm not all that religious about the USM part, but the quick focus ring would seem pretty handy for video (use AF to start and tweak or follow with the ring without having to switch off the AF).
Canon EOS 7D gets high marks all around {Engadget}
Nov 7th 2009 7:58PM Agreed!!!! I've had mine now for two weeks and I still feel that brand new gadget love whenever I touch it. Video is not my forte, but I'm absolutely loving it's high-ISO performance and it's amazing 3D metering. I'm basically NEVER using the flash now. Especially with the 50mm. If I can see it, so can the camera. Wonderful!
Canon EOS 7D gets high marks all around {Engadget}
Nov 7th 2009 7:54PM 920K pixel screen came out on the 50D, then on the T1i, then on the 5D mkII, and then on the 7D. Ergonomics are 100% personal opinion between Nikon and Canon, but the 5D, 5D mkII, and 50D are essentially identical in this regard. I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at here? Yes, the 7D is a response to the excellent 300D, but not in terms of catching up, just in terms of slotting a body in between their x0D and 5D lines.
Cartel's CT-2000 in-car Bluetooth handset adds music control, can't shake the retro {Engadget}
Nov 3rd 2009 11:58AM I currently drive an '06 GS, and yes, except for some minor differences, this is the interior. Some parts do royally suck like the completely mindless placement of generic buttons on the left and right of the nav screen (impossible to find/identify by touch). And yes the cassette is antiquated, but meant obviously for books on tape which are still very popular.
HOWEVER, overall usability is 100% better than BMW, Merc, and Audi (and now the NEW Lexus interior). I'm not sure who the brainless designers are that are insisting on dial, joystick, and mouse entry for car computer control, but they have missed the 21st century entirely. In the real world we're going nuts over adding touch interfaces to everything and car engineers are going nuts trying to remove them. In the process, they are making it harder to navigate and requiring users to spend MORE time looking at their screens and making driving more dangerous.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of this car. It drives like a Cadillac. I'm much more fond of the BMW's and Audi's. I bought it 'cause I wanted to try something different, gas mileage is impressive, the dealer is awesome, and got a good deal on it used (financial woes, as per normal these days). But I do LIKE the interior. Aesthetics, maybe not the best, but form/function is superior to most of the competition.
Back on topic, huh? Wired bluetooth handset? WTF? Of course the Lexus Bluetooth implementation sucks beans, so I actually MIGHT find a use for something like this. :)
DROID Phone Holder and Multimedia Station go for $30 apiece {Engadget}
Oct 29th 2009 3:51PM I'm confused. Do these have pass-through charging or do they just "engage" the magnetic switches necessary to put the phone into it's two auxiliary modes? Assuming they do have pass-through, this certainly seems right in line with what any other company charges for docking solutions.
Canon's EOS 7D experiencing 'residual image' phenomenon, fix is on the way {Engadget}
Oct 27th 2009 6:58PM Because they push the envelope. High-volume cameras generally use cheaper, tried and true hardware. Their users also aren't nearly so picky about minor image quality issues.
This is hardly show-stopping for 99% of photographers, though. I've not noticed anything. Not that I'm pixel-peeping my 8fps sequences, but I've not seen any ghosting. I've only seen AMAZING pictures...well, the photographer is mediocre, but the pictures are amazing. :)
Apple gives Mac mini a spec bump, adds dual-HDD Mac mini server {Engadget}
Oct 20th 2009 10:01PM The point isn't that NOBODY would find a use for the box or that some might even use some of the more obscure features of a fairly robust server OS running on an itty-bitty little machine. Obviously people like you exist. The point is that HARDLY ANYBODY would. Nobody said it was crap. They just said that it wasn't even approaching borderline mainstream. That's fine. Niche is just fine. They'll find homes for some of these, just not too many. Hell, even that crazy-expensive macminicolo company seems to find customers...from where I don't know, but they do seem to be in business.
Sure, it's a real server OS, but hardware-wise it is less of a "real" server than many of the WHS boxes that are going for $400-$500 and certainly no more so than any $500 Dell. At best it's a departmental development/build/test box, a CMS/Wiki server, or maybe a cool-but-overpriced grid/farm node. And every one of the features you mentioned using (even XGrid) are available for free on any of the Linux distros (and even available for free on...gasp!!!...Windows Home Server). And in the Linux (or even WHS) world your $999 goes a LOT further than a small, twin laptop-drive, Core 2 duo--even if power-savings is your target.
Bottom line is that you have to be a pretty rabid fan to put a $500 server OS on an overpriced $500 piece of hardware and walk away saying "dude, dat bitch be off da hook!!!"
Apple gives Mac mini a spec bump, adds dual-HDD Mac mini server {Engadget}
Oct 20th 2009 2:07PM You're right, of course. If you're looking to buy a server license and have a spare regular OS X license, then this might be a good way to get both a server license and a relatively cheap mini with no optical disc.
On a box with these specs, what exactly DOES OS X Server do that wouldn't/couldn't be done as well or better in some other way? Looking at Apple's page, it really makes you wonder. File sharing? Not many and just as easily accomplished peer-to-peer or using a cheap NAS. Web server? Well, maybe, especially for intranet-stuff, but most would be better served by any of the numerous free, cloud-based services. Mail server? IM Server? Address Book sharing? Calendar sharing? Again, most would be much better served by the cloud. Some want it in house? Okay, but it'll cost enough to set it up and maintain it that any smart business owner will choose a bigger and more "server grade" alternative.
I still see this only serving the small, techie, Mac-only shop, of which there are certainly some. Fine. It'll be a nice niche product. But if they are targeting any market larger than this they are way off target.
Apple gives Mac mini a spec bump, adds dual-HDD Mac mini server {Engadget}
Oct 20th 2009 1:49PM @Jack, no you were the only one trying to directly compare them. The original poster said he'd install WHS in Parallels and the second one said that WHS was better for his needs.
I've no doubt that you and three or four other folks will find this appealing. :) Seriously, though, it falls in a very small niche between a home server (for which it is far too expensive) and a standard office server (for which it is generally underspec'd). It could serve a very small office, perhaps, but OSX Server is rarely the first choice for this purpose unless it is a purely Mac shop. Or it could serve as a simple web server or low-end app server or something. Or even put together with tons of others in a farm. But in those roles there are generally better and lower cost alternatives (i.e., a bazillion Linux options). The point is that unless you are really a major Mac techie, this doesn't really have a place.
Apple gives Mac mini a spec bump, adds dual-HDD Mac mini server {Engadget}
Oct 20th 2009 1:15PM That's funny--battery is unnecessary for a server? No, a battery is just an extra cost for a server and is called a UPS.
The rest of the points are valid, though. However, I'd still tend to say that this is quite niche--especially for the price. Should be $500 at most given the specs. Incidentally, why have a relatively high-end graphics processor in a server?!?
