AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
jiggie2g
Jul 13, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 08:11 AM
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
Even if there is, He might be off creating other beings on the other millions of habitable planets.
He could very well be not unlike a comet, and He'll be back in a million or so of our years, to see how we have fared.
I'm not waiting up, like for Santa. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Offtobed.gif
Even if there is, He might be off creating other beings on the other millions of habitable planets.
He could very well be not unlike a comet, and He'll be back in a million or so of our years, to see how we have fared.
I'm not waiting up, like for Santa. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Offtobed.gif
Multimedia
Oct 25, 12:33 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Virtualball
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
A lot of you guys are just ridiculous. This initiative is for LGBT support, this has nothing to do with whatever other subset of bullying you support. There are no ends to support groups for people who are overweight or a different race, but you don't see anyone slamming at the doors of the NAACP asking why lesbians aren't allowed in. As noted, being gay isn't the same thing as being fat. While both are terrible for teenage self-esteem, there's a key difference. When people come out, they run the risk of losing friends or even families. I've heard so many sad stories of kids being kicked out of their home for being homosexuals whereas overweight kids deal with people at school calling them fat. I'm not belittling their problems, I'm just saying that gays have it much worse than a lot of people think.
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 04:19 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
joepunk
Mar 13, 09:45 PM
There has been another quake, possible 6.2
0134: The tremor struck off-shore 140km (87 miles) north-east of Tokyo, shaking tall buildings in the capital but the authorities did not issue a tsunami alert, AFP reports. It had a depth of 18.8km, the US Geological Survey says.
And sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima. Possibility of another Tsunami. There were two explosions (hydrogen explosion) at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP. Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says.
Probably no tsunami though.
via BBC Twitter feed.
0134: The tremor struck off-shore 140km (87 miles) north-east of Tokyo, shaking tall buildings in the capital but the authorities did not issue a tsunami alert, AFP reports. It had a depth of 18.8km, the US Geological Survey says.
And sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima. Possibility of another Tsunami. There were two explosions (hydrogen explosion) at Reactor 3, the operator Tepco says - AFP. Reactor 3 withstood the explosion(s), its operator says.
Probably no tsunami though.
via BBC Twitter feed.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:29 AM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
Miranda Lambert performing quot;Kerosenequot; at Blake Shelton#39;s American Country Awards after party in Las Vegas on December 6, 2010.
Miranda Lambert Kerosene
from Miranda Lambert at
album miranda lambert
miranda lambert kerosene album. Miranda Lambert - Kerosene Platinum Album; Miranda Lambert - Kerosene Platinum Album. jhedges3. Aug 11, 03:24 PM
Miranda Lambert
Miranda Lambert will headline
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
I absolutely agree with you; there is no compulsion for anyone to be Catholic (well, that's not strictly true, since people are often forced to accept Catholicism as children, before they are capable of making the decision for themselves).
But that doesn't in any way imply that the position of the Catholic church on this issue (and so, so, so many others) isn't hateful and discriminatory.
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
I absolutely agree with you; there is no compulsion for anyone to be Catholic (well, that's not strictly true, since people are often forced to accept Catholicism as children, before they are capable of making the decision for themselves).
But that doesn't in any way imply that the position of the Catholic church on this issue (and so, so, so many others) isn't hateful and discriminatory.
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
bghoward
Oct 7, 05:21 PM
SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:27 PM
nixd2001:
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Those score I posted earlier were from the integer version of the loop that I was ripping on as meaningless. The float version is not quite so meaningless because you can't just unroll the thing, because floats get different results if the ops are even done in different orders. For the benefit of people who may not know it, with floating point numbers often 4x != x + x + x.
Anyway, my P3 Xeon 700 sports this compiler:
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
Results for the exact loop posted by PCUser are:
gcc -O driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.858
gcc -O2 -funroll-loops driver.c -o exe && time ./exe
38.818
On a side note, I also found gcc on my Mac after relogging into the terminal so that things were added to the path. Funny that the finder's find cannot see tools like gcc. I'll get results for that posted soon.
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 12, 09:45 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.
--Eric
What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:17 PM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
Oneand0
Jun 24, 02:48 AM
Do a lot of travel around the U.S., about 25 trips a year. I have a Verizon phone with the US GOVT. and my cool Iphone. Let's just say that with every four or five dropped calls on Iphone, I get maybe 1 on the Verizon overall. Recently dropped a friend four times in a row using IPHONE at home, and I have no landline phone. As much as I like Apple and the Iphone, this DROID X is too beautiful of a screen for me to avoid July 15th, since I watch so many movies during travel on my iphone, not to mention the better service with Verizon.
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
toddicus
Nov 3, 06:08 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
emotion
Sep 21, 01:39 PM
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
evilgEEk
Sep 20, 10:21 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar