inkswamp
Oct 7, 06:38 PM
And because Android and Google operate in an "integrative and open environment, [they] could easily top ... the singular Apple," he said.
It's 2009. Are people still turned on by buzzwords like this?
I assume by "integrative and open," they mean open source. That's great and I love open source software (though there's been some debate as to how open Android really is) but here's the deal. Time and time again we see that what really matters in consumer tech is what works for the buyer, not what makes sense behind-the-scenes for developers. There are lots and lots of open source projects out there that have had success but very few instances where one has toppled and established closed source system. Even Firefox, one of the most popular pieces of open source software out there, is still way behind Internet Explorer.
If Apple keeps pumping out great ideas and maintains the level of quality they've delivered so far, there's no logical reason to think something will overtake it just because it's "integrative and open."
It's 2009. Are people still turned on by buzzwords like this?
I assume by "integrative and open," they mean open source. That's great and I love open source software (though there's been some debate as to how open Android really is) but here's the deal. Time and time again we see that what really matters in consumer tech is what works for the buyer, not what makes sense behind-the-scenes for developers. There are lots and lots of open source projects out there that have had success but very few instances where one has toppled and established closed source system. Even Firefox, one of the most popular pieces of open source software out there, is still way behind Internet Explorer.
If Apple keeps pumping out great ideas and maintains the level of quality they've delivered so far, there's no logical reason to think something will overtake it just because it's "integrative and open."
Rt&Dzine
Apr 26, 05:50 PM
Or it vanished in a miracle.
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 02:47 PM
Are you drunk?
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
snoopy07
May 5, 02:49 PM
Until at&t gets competition from other provider with the iphone things won�t change. Right now if you want the iphone in the US its at&t or jailbrake it to t-mobile. At&t won�t care because if you want the iphone you need them, but with other carriers it will be different. They will have to maintain a great network and service or will take our iphone to the other carrier. This competition is needed and it�s the only way we the customers will get what we need.
:apple:
:apple:
TalkAboutApple
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
I switched for a couple years...and then switched back, into Windows 7.
OSX seems really long in the tooth, other than time machine I can't think of clear advantages. The strange thing is that I find the UI lacking. I found I spent tons of time trying to manipulate the edges of windows for resizing, accidentally clicking on the desktop while in an application, etc.
I'd like to see some real innovation on the desktop, I know they can do it but it doesn't seem a priority.
OSX seems really long in the tooth, other than time machine I can't think of clear advantages. The strange thing is that I find the UI lacking. I found I spent tons of time trying to manipulate the edges of windows for resizing, accidentally clicking on the desktop while in an application, etc.
I'd like to see some real innovation on the desktop, I know they can do it but it doesn't seem a priority.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 02:25 PM
What's an assertation?
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
It's like a "revalation" without the "angals" sanging.
theBB
Sep 20, 12:32 PM
Here is my wishlist:
1) Basestation or range extender for 802.11 b/g and maybe "a" or "n".
(Airport Express has both of these features, so I'd say likely.)
2) Using the ethernet connection instead of wireless network to stream music, photo slideshows and videos.
(I don't see why not)
3) Hooking up a USB harddrive with my music, photos and videos to avoid any wireless connection hiccups.
4) It would be great if I could also use that same harddrive as a sort of media server that I can reach from other computers at home.
(3 and 4 could happen, but I would not be surprised if they leave them out.)
5) Using it as a print server by connecting a USB printer, like the current Airport Express. (Well, if iTV is in the living room, this feature will not be really necessary. Still, a few years down the road there will be a newer and better version. Then, I could use the old one for more mundane network tasks.)
1) Basestation or range extender for 802.11 b/g and maybe "a" or "n".
(Airport Express has both of these features, so I'd say likely.)
2) Using the ethernet connection instead of wireless network to stream music, photo slideshows and videos.
(I don't see why not)
3) Hooking up a USB harddrive with my music, photos and videos to avoid any wireless connection hiccups.
4) It would be great if I could also use that same harddrive as a sort of media server that I can reach from other computers at home.
(3 and 4 could happen, but I would not be surprised if they leave them out.)
5) Using it as a print server by connecting a USB printer, like the current Airport Express. (Well, if iTV is in the living room, this feature will not be really necessary. Still, a few years down the road there will be a newer and better version. Then, I could use the old one for more mundane network tasks.)
UWF404
Jul 7, 09:51 PM
My very first call dropped and when I grip the phone as one would naturally hold the phone I lose 3 bars. The phone looks cooler than the older 3GS. However, the sharper edges make it uncomfortable to hold compared to old phone. The supposed upgraded screen seems to me only marginally better. That said, who here who has a 3GS ever said "geez, if only the screen was better" :rolleyes:
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 10:08 PM
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Relax...just being a doubting Thomas, or devil's advocate, if you wish.
One could argue decisions about being an atheist, agnostic, or believer are life altering.
The demographics and worldwide distribution of those who identify themselves as atheist are interesting. There is a likely overlap with those who post here.
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Relax...just being a doubting Thomas, or devil's advocate, if you wish.
One could argue decisions about being an atheist, agnostic, or believer are life altering.
The demographics and worldwide distribution of those who identify themselves as atheist are interesting. There is a likely overlap with those who post here.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:12 PM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
skunk
Mar 26, 07:14 PM
I guess I need a better dictionary
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 10:28 AM
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
matthew23
Mar 18, 12:36 PM
I wonder if MyWi will patch their program some how to get around all of this. Anyone know if they have said anything?
philbeeney
Mar 11, 02:38 PM
Yet another one. 6.6 off the north west coast. Here's a link to the USGS website showing all the quake locations in northern Japan.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_40.php
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:01 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
diamornte
Apr 13, 02:50 AM
Wait, what happened to all that talk of iPad integration? Another Macrumorfanboy wet dream?
Multimedia
Oct 21, 10:03 AM
lmao and just to add, DAMN that is alot of coresNot if you use applications that are Core Hogs. Compressing video with Toast uses up to 4 cores per instance. Compressing video with Handbrake uses up to 3 cores per instance. So, no, it's not a lot of cores at all and I will be buying a 16 core then a 32 core Mac Pro the day they ship as well. :eek:
rxse7en
Oct 12, 03:20 PM
Dammit! Dell just dropped the price of the 24" LCD today to $679. That's a hell of a deal for a 24", I think I may have to pull the trigger on one tonight as I really need some screen real estate to work in--this is getting ridiculous working on mags on 15" MBP and a craptastic 17" LCD I stole from my wife. Then, if they drop the prices on the 24s and 30s on Black Friday I'll buy another one.
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 10:23 AM
Contrary to what many people are saying here, I don't think PVR is Apple's stratedgy. PVR woud have to be based on a subscription model, and Apple has shown us for years now that it won't have it that way.
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
First of all, with subscription models, Apple doesn't have a constant income vs content distributed ratio. They'll lose money on those who use it a lot and only *maybe* gain on those who don't. This is as opposed to the current model where Apple earns a lot of money on those who use it a lot, not as much on those who don't, but are least it's the same rate, no matter who you are. Non-subscription models offer more freedom.
I'm pretty sure that if you want to watch a show, Apple wants you to buy it from them at full price. That way they don't have to deal with whoever might be watching a ton of shows vs those who aren't. They ensure their profitability this way.
...and when it comes to iTunes Music, their profit margins are slim to begin with.
-Clive
barkmonster
Oct 7, 04:19 PM
I emailed this to rob-art morgan on Saturday :
I know the test was to find out how similarly clocked G4, Athlon and Pentium 4 chips perform but I was wondering if it was possible for you to test against the 2 fastest Intel and AMD chips ?
The price of both a 2Ghz Pentium 4 and 1.6Ghz Athlon PC put's it in the same range as the entry level eMac and that's assuming the PC is built using high quality drives and components. This is true for the UK at least.
I'd suggest the following systems, I don't know the details of motherboards or specific RAM configurations but going off cpu speed and the fastest availble RAM for the systems these 3 configurations would make for a fair "high end mac" vs "high end PC" comparison :
Dual 1.25Ghz, stock HD, stock graphics card, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, OS 10.2.1
Athlon XP 2200+, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, Windows XP Professional
2.8Ghz Pentium 4, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 533Mhz RDRAM, Windows XP Professional
He responded with this :
That's a great suggestion. I'll try to get that arranged.
In the mean time, I'm working on a Pentium 4 2.53MHz + GeForce4 Ti 4600 versus G4 1.25GHz *2 + GeForce4 Ti (4600) comparo.
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Call me a pesimist but concidering how it's scrapped by when compared with lower end cpus I can see a thorough G4 thrashing coming up on barefeats very soon.
I know the test was to find out how similarly clocked G4, Athlon and Pentium 4 chips perform but I was wondering if it was possible for you to test against the 2 fastest Intel and AMD chips ?
The price of both a 2Ghz Pentium 4 and 1.6Ghz Athlon PC put's it in the same range as the entry level eMac and that's assuming the PC is built using high quality drives and components. This is true for the UK at least.
I'd suggest the following systems, I don't know the details of motherboards or specific RAM configurations but going off cpu speed and the fastest availble RAM for the systems these 3 configurations would make for a fair "high end mac" vs "high end PC" comparison :
Dual 1.25Ghz, stock HD, stock graphics card, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, OS 10.2.1
Athlon XP 2200+, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, Windows XP Professional
2.8Ghz Pentium 4, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 533Mhz RDRAM, Windows XP Professional
He responded with this :
That's a great suggestion. I'll try to get that arranged.
In the mean time, I'm working on a Pentium 4 2.53MHz + GeForce4 Ti 4600 versus G4 1.25GHz *2 + GeForce4 Ti (4600) comparo.
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Call me a pesimist but concidering how it's scrapped by when compared with lower end cpus I can see a thorough G4 thrashing coming up on barefeats very soon.
TheSlush
Oct 8, 11:11 AM
Gartner's crazy.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:45 AM
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
