Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mac mini, Apple DVR?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:00 AM
from the a-want-my-atv dept.
CDPatten was one of several to note the rumor of a new Mac PVR... code named Kaleidoscope and featuring an Intel CPU and Front Row 2.0.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Plus an iPod dock (Score:5, Interesting)

    by axonis (640949) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:03AM (#14137636)
    Dont forget the all important iPod dock which was left out at last minute from the PPC version
    • Re:Plus an iPod dock (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:52AM (#14138062) Homepage Journal
      I thought the conclusion for those solder points was that it couldn't be for a dock because the number and spacing of pins was wrong.
      • Re:all-important? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:28AM (#14138453)
        Really wouldn't say that iPod integration is "all important". It would certainly be a nice touch with elegant Apple style, but the value add is maybe 10 bucks max.
        The iPod is Apple's #1 springboard into content distribution. How much does the value of the high-margin video iPod go up if you can simply drop it on your DVR and automatically get all your selected programming to go, with no further hassle?

        Compared to dedicated products like TiVo, an Apple PVR could have a lot to offer if it is not a closed, locked-down system. Provide a high-quality usable product up-front, but in addition turn the user base loose and see what they come up with. Remember, Apple did not invent podcasting.

        Would an Apple PVR go anywhere Microsoft's media PC hasn't already gone? Since Apple already has content distribution deals with major players like ABC, I'd say it's a possibility. Hardly anybody even knows that Microsoft has its own music-store competitor to iTunes.

  • by tlacuache (768218) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:04AM (#14137641)
    The MPAA filed a lawsuit against Apple this morning, citing massive revenue losses due to the new Apple DVR.
    • Quite seriously, one wonders what irritating DRM Apple will put in to avoid just those suits -- Or worse, add in later "upgrades".
      • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by God'sDuck (837829) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:13AM (#14137723)
        one wonders what irritating DRM Apple will put in

        True...although considering that the mac mini isn't all that much bigger than a VHS tape, if all i wanted to do was tape something and bring it to a friend's house, even if they drm'd it to death i could conceivably just pick up my whole pvr and take it with me everywhere. intriguiging...
        • by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:46AM (#14138617)
          True...although considering that the mac mini isn't all that much bigger than a VHS tape
          But the Mac Mini as we know it is not a PVR. The obvious problem (mentioned in the article) is the use of laptop hard drives, a very bad choice for a PVR. Then they need somewhere to put a tuner for analog signals, and hardware video compression circuitry. They need a digital audio out, plus composite, s-video, and hopefully component video outputs. In other words, of all the specialized requirements for a PVR, the Mac Mini hardly meets any of them, and doesn't have any room inside for expansion.

          Besides, I doubt Apple would try to push portability in a PVR design anyways. They'd probably rather people use the video iPod for that.

        • by MaestroSartori (146297) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:59AM (#14138136) Homepage
          Straying dangerously off-topic now, but...

          Some things broadcast on TV are entertaining. There's nothing wrong with wanting to watch entertaining things, so a system which helps me sift the entertainment out of the vast mass of TV crap out there is a winner.

          Why people like you advocate the wholesale boycott of TV instead of embracing the ways to cherry-pick the good stuff while ignoring the rubbish is beyond me. "We have the technology", and not all of us are vegetative couch potato folks sitting in front of the tube watching rubbish while waiting for the good stuff.
            • by Tim Browse (9263) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:45AM (#14138607)
              I used to not watch TV, but I found I was spending so much time telling other people (who didn't want to know) about how I don't watch TV, that it took up less time just to watch the damn TV instead.
                  • by tomhudson (43916) <hudsonNO@SPAMvideotron.ca> on Tuesday November 29 2005, @01:26PM (#14139609) Journal
                    Clued-in moderators rate funny stuff as insightful, b/c funny mods don't increase karma, whereas a corresponding downmod will decrease it. Its the weird slashmath. For example, say you get 5 +1 funny mods. You get no karma points for Funny mods. Then someone else bitch-slaps you with 5 -1 troll mods. You get a -5 karma hit.

                    Besides, you have to have a bit of insight to be funny ... otherwise it wouldn't be funny, so its karmic (ok, moan and groan, that pun was pretty bad)

            • by AeroIllini (726211) <aeroillini.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 29 2005, @12:27PM (#14139027)
              Well, its not really off-topic, because PVRs are supposed to help you "cherry-pcik", but in reality people use them to consume even more junk. Just like the original VCR - people tape stuff "becasue they can", and nver get around to watching half of it.

              Then I'm glad you are here to tell us how to use our technology properly. News flash: everything on TV is there because lots of people watch it. That's the reality of the business. Just because you and I don't like 90% of the programming available doesn't mean that no one likes it. Obviously people are watching it, or the networks would replace it with something else. The whole point of television is to get people to watch, so they can sell advertising. And as a ten-percenter (someone who only likes 10% of available programming) I'm grateful for technologies that allow me to find what I want without having to watch the things I don't. And if I record something with the intention of watching it and never do, it's not a problem. I didn't pay to record that program, and once I delete it the disk space can be used for other things. No sweat.

              So, how much TV have you watched the last year, including the time spent doing the "cherry-picking"? Mine stays off for weeks at a time. Actually, its pretty much only been on this year when friends come over to watch a dvd.

              Actually, I've spent quite a bit of time watching program's I've "cherry-picked", but almost all of it was because of my automatic script pulling episodes out of RSS feeds and downloading them via BitTorrent. The actual television was off for most of that time, and the time spent doing the actual "cherry-picking" was minimal; it amounted to me typing a regular expression into my filter list and letting the script automatically download the episodes. Sometimes I hear about a new show, and I download one to try it out. If I like it, it goes into the regular rotation. If not, I delete it and get on with my life.

              I am currently in the process of building a MythTV box, to free up my cable modem. And, so I can sit on the couch and watch the episodes, instead of at my desk. And, so I can see them on my big TV instead of my smaller LCD monitor. And, so I can record sports to timeshift (no one on BitTorrent seems to care about distributing NCAA basketball games). And, to free up my hard drive.

              The DVR has essentially turned television into a pull medium instead of the push medium it has been since its debut. It has put the consumer back in control. How is this a bad thing, again?
  • The excuse I need. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shivetya (243324) <shivetya.archonon@com> on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:08AM (#14137684) Homepage
    To own a Mac is to have it give me some functionality I cannot easily derive from my Windows PC in a format that doesn't collide with my entertainment center.

    I would like to have a Mac around to experience OS/X but I don't need it and therefor have no reason to spend the money. Make it do something useful for me that I would have to already spend money to have and then I can consider it.

    Yeah I know TiVO is big, my friends have them. I also see MCE and some Linux solutions. The first is proprietary and the other two require work on my end to have something that both looks decent and might actually work.

    If Apple can deliver a PVR that also allows me to dabble with OS/X who knows where it might lead. The big IF is, will they price it for the market or let their ego do the pricing?
    • by utexaspunk (527541) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:40AM (#14137948)
      Yeah I know TiVO is big, my friends have them. I also see MCE and some Linux solutions. The first is proprietary and the other two require work on my end to have something that both looks decent and might actually work.

      So you dismissed the TiVo because it's proprietary and yet would like a DVR from Apple? I seriously doubt whatever Apple releases will be any less proprietary than TiVo...
        • by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:46AM (#14138007)
          Apple used to have the best support in the business, hands down. Support that today you would marvel at. Amazing support.

          At the exact same time, people were abandoning Apple in droves for competitors who had lousy support.

          So, you can't blame Apple for bad support. You have to blame the invisible hand of the free market.
  • Will MythTV run? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drewzhrodague (606182) <.ten.eugadorhz. .ta. .werd.> on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:08AM (#14137685) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if MythTV will run, or how their software stacks-up against MythTV. I really enjoyed having a Myth in the living room, but it is pretty annoying to make a PC into a set-top, with cables, adaptors, and stuff. Machines built for the set-top are (obviously) more specialized, but generally lack major features (like keyboards, mice, MAME, etc). Maybe I should have picked up a PVR-250 yesterday during the non-sale.
  • Reminds me of the line "What is it? We're not saying yet, but that won't stop you from posting about it on every message board you have access to."
  • video ipod (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aberson (461047) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:11AM (#14137705) Homepage
    this is an obvious step... it better be able to sync with a video ipod.

    Seriously, who cares about "Watching their music"
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:18AM (#14137765)
      Seriously, who cares about "Watching their music"

      Those of us on acid, naturally.
    • Re:video ipod (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tpgp (48001) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:18AM (#14137770) Homepage
      this is an obvious step... it better be able to sync with a video ipod.

      I can guarantee that it will not sync with the video ipod in a useful way (ie transcode TV shows to ipod's low res format)

      Because:

      1) I doubt this thing will be fast enough to transcode a TV show in a timeframe deemed acceptable to Apple's high QA standards.

      2) Revenue sources (why would anyone buy what they can set their shiny new Apple PVR to record?)

      3) Fear of getting sued.
      • Re:video ipod (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gulthek (12570) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:31AM (#14137876) Homepage Journal
        1) I doubt this thing will be fast enough to transcode a TV show in a timeframe deemed acceptable to Apple's high QA standards.

        Apple has a QA standard to tv transcoding? The closest thing I can think of is an iDVD encoding which can take hours on my dual 1.8Ghz. I'm sure that a mac mini can transcode a tv show to low res in less than hours. Hell, even with the hardware that's in the little boxes now shows could almost be transcoded on the fly. How is that not good enough?

        2) Revenue sources (why would anyone buy what they can set their shiny new Apple PVR to record?)

        The same reason people with tivos still buy DVDs, extra content. If you refer to the music store, then I submit that their ultimate goal is to be the content distribution medium for videos and shows that *aren't* on network television. Think of Star Trek: Beyond; now replace Star Trek with New, Brilliantly Written, Made by the Viewer tv show. Such a beast could never hope to reach a market via television unless they were very lucky; but now anyone can make a show and get it on iTunes.

        3) Fear of getting sued.

        Silly. It would be no more than a portable tivo.
  • by ian_mackereth (889101) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:12AM (#14137714) Journal
    I hate the way that it keeps charging me 99c every time a music track plays in the background... At least it won't have some of the annoying features of Windows Media. I hate it when Clippy appears and says "You seem to be watching pro wrestling. Shall I e-order beer and pizza for you?"
  • Mini-mac PVR (Score:5, Informative)

    by dvdungeon (761065) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:16AM (#14137745)
    I'm already using my mini-mac as a pvr. Mini-mac, plus eyeTV (via firewire) plus 21" lcd = pvr. It does recording, live pause thingy, editing, plays dvds and music. I use an external 160 usb drive for recording, and can archive to dvd. The eyetv software gets listings from the internet. Not bad for a quite little box. Matt
    • Re:Mini-mac PVR (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Golias (176380) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:58AM (#14138133)
      Likewise. The EyeTV 500 is a nice little HD tuner that lets the mini do the work of a PVR, along with all the other usual stuff.

      Since I use a projection system and don't really need my media computer to be teeny-tiny, I'm actually replacing it this week with a refurb G5 tower. The mini is going into my music studio rack as a headless digital audio processor. Versitile little gadgets, those minis.
  • by mattyohe (517995) <matt...yohe@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:17AM (#14137758)
    This makes perfect sense. Now you will be able to have some sort of integration between the DVR app and iTunes to load up your iPod with your saved tv shows...

    But now that I think about it, this would cannibalize iTunes TV show sales... Maybe this is all rumor?
    • by Johnny Mozzarella (655181) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:32AM (#14138492)
      People can get music on their iPods for free. Why would anybody buy from iTMS?
      Once Apple has millions of these in living rooms, there will be a much larger potential audience for paid video content.
      Not a lot of people are buying iTunes TV shows because not a lot of people have a Digital Home Theater.
  • Kaleidoscope (Score:5, Informative)

    by derniers (792431) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:23AM (#14137810)
    way back when Kaleidoscope was a nifty UI app for OS 9 and the guy who wrote it (Greg Landweber) went to work for Apple
    • by ianscot (591483) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:40AM (#14137952)
      Greg Landweber ascended to the mother ship? Decent example of Apple taking on someone whose main product Jobs didn't really agree with. Steve-o has never much liked the custom "skins" idea, and basically killed it with OS X.

      For those who aren't familiar, the old Kaleidoscope gave you the ability to drop "skins" over the OS 9 finder and OS, to the point where you could go with a complete BeOS or any number of completely outlandish looks and feels.

      Half of the results weren't amazingly useful, exactly, but it was so easy to develop a new scheme that you could easily tinker around and produce yout own flavor. The archive of schemes [kaleidoscope.net] pretty much says it all.

  • Form Factor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Snorklefish (639711) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:24AM (#14137824)
    If Apple wants to be at the center of the A/V world, I suggest they build a machine that can physically sit at the center of a typical A/V ensemble. The mini's size makes sense on a crowded desk. But putting a mini on top of your tower of A/V components looks silly and feels cheap.
  • Why build when... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WebGangsta (717475) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:27AM (#14137849)
    Apple should just go ahead and buy TiVo and get it over with.

    TiVo already negotiated the ability to transfer files to the Video iPod, so why not go the next step and put the iPod connector directly on the box itself?

    • Re:Why build when... (Score:5, Informative)

      by renderhead (206057) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:43AM (#14137974)
      TiVo negotiated nothing. They're just incorporating the technology to automatically convert the video they record into a format that the iPod supports (which is completely open - simply MPEG-4 video that fits within certain dimensions). A nice feature, but they didn't require or receive Apple's cooperation.
  • In the meantime... (Score:4, Informative)

    by sootman (158191) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:31AM (#14137881) Journal
    ...I'm a huge fan of MediaCentral. [mh1.de] It does just a few things and does them very well. Amazing that it's just a 0.1 release, unlike CenterStage, which--as neat as it will surely be, someday--has been in development since February and is currently at a semi-functional 0.4. It's also very simple to use. Key features:
    - plays movies
    - plays DVDs
    - plays DVDs ripped to a VIDEO_TS folder and the parent folder name is what shows up in the menu
    It also works with EyeTV products, but I don't have or care about that--being a happy DirecTiVo owner, I was just looking for something that does everything the TiVo doesn't. Works with some ATI remotes, according to the site, and it also works with my $30 Keyspan DMR remote control. Just set '*" to be 'quit' and 'stop' to be 'eject' (in addition to the regular keys--left, right, up, down, enter=middle, space=play/pause, escape=menu) and you're in business. Runs fine on my base (1.25 GHz, 256 MB) Mini.
  • by Fahrvergnuugen (700293) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:46AM (#14138008) Homepage

    There is software available as part of the Apple FireWire SDK that lets you record MPEG2 streams direct from a firewire enabled cable box. Hmmm....

    Check here [macosxhints.com], here [avsforum.com] and here: [use this link: http://machdtvtimer.home.comcast.net/%5D [comcast.net] for more info.

  • by Cereal Box (4286) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:22AM (#14138385)
    This may be a little offtopic, but I just wanted to share my disappointment in using the Mac Mini as an entertainment center (didn't even bother with the DVR stuff).

    • Cost -- the Mac Mini is a little expensive. But that's OK, I had originally bought it as a general-purpose desktop, and later decided to it a shot as an entertainment center and having constant problems with my Windows entertainment center.
    • Audio -- the only decent 5.1 audio solutions for the Mini are USB or Firewire hardware from M-Audio. The cheapest one I could find that does proper AC3 passthrough was something like $80-$100, and it was just some cheezy little USB thing! Turtle Beach sells pretty much the same thing for $20, and it works on the Mac, but without the AC3 passthrough (if you're curious, AC3 passthrough works on Windows). Oh, and let's not forget, the M-Audio units require you to do a manual AC3/PCM selection! I.e., you can't just go from listening to MP3s to 5.1 sound when watching a movie unless you manually change the output format. Geez.
    • Video -- the DVI connection works great on my HDTV. Unfortunately, I have to shell out $20 for a program that will allow me to set the Mini's display resolution to 1280x768 (the TVs native resolution). VGA is not an option, because my TV will do image realignment every time I switch back to the VGA input, and if I'm watching 4:3 pillarboxed material, the image will be shifted quite a bit to the left.
    • Remotes -- The only IR remote I could find was the crappy Keyspan remote. That thing has only like 20 buttons! You've really got to get creative if you want this thing to control your entertainment center. And before you ask, I can't use the ATI Remote Wonder because it's an RF remote, and I want to use my IR universal remote to control the Mini.
    • Software -- By far the worst offender. CenterStage just plain didn't work with my ripped DVDs (a series of VIDEO_TS folders on a share). Matinee didn't seem to work either. I wasn't going to bother with MythTV (way too much hassle on OS X). There really is a stunning lack of passable frontend software for the Mac. It's a shame, really.


    These are all the problems I ran into, and I can't imagine how much trouble it would've been getting emulators to work in addition to movies/music (none of the frontends seemed to support emulators).

    So to all those that think the Mac Mini is a good entertainment center choice, I say think again! It's really expensive, the software is terrible, and the hardware issues are a real pain. You know what I did recently? Spent far less money on an XBox and put XBMC on it. It works just the way I expect it to, and with a lot less hassle!
  • Mac mini done better (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wootest (694923) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:26AM (#14138441)
    I'm not at all terribly into the DVR aspects of the new Mac mini. It's nice, but there are plenty of other things to get more excited about.

    First... An Intel Mac mini means a sub-$500 computer that runs OS X and Windows. Steve Jobs quipped during the launch of the first Mac mini that they wanted to price it so that "people who are, you know, thinking of switching, will have no more excuses". With this they won't even need to keep their own PC - assuming the storage is plentiful and drivers available, they can transfer over all old files from their PC and keep their old environment truckin' in addition to working in OS X.

    Speaking of storage. Think Secret's report notices that a 3.5" HD might be in the cards (instead of the current 2.5") which would, even after adding bulk to the relatively small machine, be a good move as it would allow for more storage and cheaper drives. The most spacious 2.5" drives Apple offer today are 120GB for the Powerbook and only 100GB on the mini - the smallest 3.5" Apple will let you get away with on the iMac is a 160GB drive.

    While we're dreaming, I hope Apple will make Superdrive (DVD+-RW and Dual Layer) standard, and add Gigabit Ethernet, an extra USB port or two and certainly an extra RAM slot.
  • What about games? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigpat (158134) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:54AM (#14138699) Homepage
    You hook up a couple USB or bluetooth game controllers and you have yourself the best looking game console around. Maybe not as its main feature, but there are plenty of games out for OSX to make a Mac Mini a versatile PVR, game console, DVD player/recorder and living room PC.

    The key would be not to limit functionality to make it feel too much like a special purpose device, but to have a simple button to switch the software from one mode to the other. Maybe just have a remote like a multipurpose remote, with buttons on the top for switching between different modes, and a cool ipod like menu wheel. That would be pretty slick.

  • by tji (74570) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @01:15PM (#14139510)
    We all know how reliable Think Secret is with there "inside info". This looks like another case of ass-talking.

    Some of their quotes from this article just seemed silly.. "It is similarly unknown whether Apple will scrap the 2.5-inch hard drive currently featured in the Mac mini in favor a standard 3.5-inch hard drive". WTF? Have they seen a Mac Mini? A 3.5" drive would require a completely new, much larger, case. Also, 3.5" drives account for 10W+ more power/heat, which is a no-go in the tiny confines of the Mac Mini.

    Ever since the x86 announcement, people have been speculating that the Mini would be one of the first to go Intel. I don't see this.. Even the Pentium-M processors can't go as low in power/heat as the PowerPC G4's. The extremely small space of the Mini tells me that it would be the last to go x86, not the first.

    • by ergo98 (9391) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:08AM (#14137675) Homepage Journal
      If they keep that name for production, I have a feeling these guys may have an issue with it. But I guess the way justice works in the US, whoever has more money is right, so Apple shouldn't be worried.

      When's the last time a code name was also used for the retail product? I can't remember that ever happening. It's a "code name" for a reason - the developers and designers needed something to call it, without the hassle of all of the due diligence and legal work.

      For a media center [yafla.com] to really work, it needs to be anointed by the cable and satellite companies: If it's unable to work with the digital EDTV and digital HDTV signals on their networks, with all of their DRM, then it is close to useless. Microsoft recently got that blessing [audioholics.com], though apparently it won't be supported in retail deliveries until next Christmas.
      • by coinreturn (617535) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:47AM (#14138017)
        When's the last time a code name was also used for the retail product? I can't remember that ever happening. It's a "code name" for a reason - the developers and designers needed something to call it, without the hassle of all of the due diligence and legal work.

        Of course, this being America, you can sue any time you want - including when it's just a codename. That's what Carl Sagan did over the use of Sagan as a codename by Apple. Apple responded by using the codename BHA, which stood prominently for Butt-Head Astronomer.
          • by coinreturn (617535) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @11:25AM (#14138424)
            In partial defense of Carl, let the record show that Apple was designing three PowerMacs right then:

            PM 6100: codename Piltdown Man, famous archaeology hoax
            PM 7100: codename Sagan
            PM 8100: codename Cold Fusion, overhyped physics flop du jour

            In his place, I'd also be unhappy about the implication of being placed in between those two.


            That's one take on things. Another is to note that the PM6100/7100/8100 were the first Macs to be powered by the PowerPC - a major evolution for Macs (first processor family change). Piltdown man was supposed to be the missing link that would revolutionalize the theories of evolution, whereas Cold Fusion was supposed to revolutionalize power generation. Did Carl Sagan revolutionalize physics? Well, he certainly brought it to the masses.

            Still, it was a friggin' internal codename. I'm glad he lost the suit (and the BHA suit).
              • by coinreturn (617535) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @12:44PM (#14139194)
                Okay, so the PM7100 wasn't the greatest machine they ever made. You have to admit that their changing to a completely new processor was an amazing accomplishment - fat binaries, 68K emulation/translation. That successful transition is the only thing that makes investors and users believe that the Intel switch is even possible.
        • by ergo98 (9391) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:20AM (#14137780) Homepage Journal
          Uh...Tiger?

          Tiger's real code-name was Slate. Apple was playing a bit of a game, and choosing actual retail names that they publicly disseminated as "code names". Of course they could be doing it with this product, but the instant hit on a competing product proves that close to impossible.
          • by Rosyna (80334) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @12:27PM (#14139018) Homepage
            Slate? Where did you get slate from? Tiger's codename was "Merlot", named after the wine. In the pre-Jobs days around the time when System X.X was renamed to Mac OS X.X, all versions of Mac OS had musical related codenames (or were somehow linked to Gil "Buster" Amelio). After Jobs, all OS X code names (at least since the cat names were used in marketing) were/are Wines.

            Since I am so freakin' awesome, I've gone ahead and found evidence to support what I say. See http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4. 3/CF-368.18/Base.subproj/CFUtilities.h [apple.com] and search for "Merlot". It also has the codenames for Panther (Pinot) and, presumably, Leopard (Chablis).

            And just in case you don't have an ADC account, here is the relevant section:

            typedef enum {
                    CFSystemVersionCheetah = 0, /* 10.0 */
                    CFSystemVersionPuma = 1, /* 10.1 */
                    CFSystemVersionJaguar = 2, /* 10.2 */
                    CFSystemVersionPanther = 3, /* 10.3 */
                    CFSystemVersionPinot = 3, /* Deprecated name for Panther */
                    CFSystemVersionTiger = 4, /* 10.4 */
                    CFSystemVersionMerlot = 4, /* Deprecated name for Tiger */
                    CFSystemVersionChablis = 5, /* Post-Tiger */
                    CFSystemVersionMax /* This should bump up when new entries are added */
            } CFSystemVersion;
        • Lisa?

          That was a code name, IIRC. They ended up reverse acronym-izing it, but it certainly didn't begin life as a real name...
    • Man, I was just about to build one of those out of MythTV:

      Scripts. Scripts allow users to create and play any sequence of DVD discs, movies, trailers, episodes, favorite scenes, home videos, cover art, and other Scripts. This makes it easy to incorporate customized movie openings and intermissions for a truly personalized theatrical experience.

      I'd give their system a try, but "How much does it cost" is not in their FAQ, and I'm in one of the 14 states that doesn't have a dealer. I guess I'll forge ahea

      • The disclaimer is only to avoid confusion. The Mac was named after the Macintosh apple, "America's favorite apple."

        On the other hand, who in the industry should we look to for originality--Microsoft with "Media Center"? Fucking Windows?!?!? "Windows" in a GUI were called "windows" long before MS came along and co-opted the word for their whole stupid OS.

        Then again, Apple and MS have one product that infuriates me--both of them call their remote-control app "Remote [apple.com] Desktop [microsoft.com]."
    • Re:sorry guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tgibbs (83782) on Tuesday November 29 2005, @10:59AM (#14138143)
      Sorry guys, this is nothing but another geek masturbatory fantasy. Cheap, good-enough DVRs from the cable company already beat down Tivo, and now, rather than buy a $200 Tivo, you expect me to pay $500 for a DVR mini? And you expect me to use this on my SDTV? Not everyone has HDTV yet.

      If everybody was happy with "good enough" then Apple would have gone out of business years ago. As for HD, I'm seeing rows of cheap ($500-600) HD TVs at Walmart. In a lot of areas, all it takes is a cheap roof antenna or even rabbit ears to bring in perfect HD, so why pay for cable, anyway?