robwormald
Mar 22, 02:18 PM
What I'm looking forward to the most is playing with the web browsers on these machines. Our internal business applications run either in a JRE or in a web browser - on iPads we run them as full screen web apps. Works great.
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
Unfortunately Apple saw fit not to allow full screen web-apps to use the Nitro JS engine, so we're not seeing the same performance bumps there.
I demo'ed a Xoom for a few days - the web app support is frankly atrocious and was basically unusable - unfortunate as we're a Google Apps shop and the integration would have been nice. I don't hold out much hope for the other Honeycomb based tablets.
However, the reviews on the Playbook and WebOS tablets have been pretty stellar about the web browser - so I'm excited to see how webapps work on these (especially WebOS!)
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:12 PM
I'm pretty sure I figured it out.
I watched Wonder Woman too much as a kid! :eek:
Well then, they have to explain me. I liked GI Joe, Captain America, Batman and played sports. It just gets more ridiculous the more they try with their junk science.
I watched Wonder Woman too much as a kid! :eek:
Well then, they have to explain me. I liked GI Joe, Captain America, Batman and played sports. It just gets more ridiculous the more they try with their junk science.
arkitect
Mar 22, 12:55 PM
Competition is good.
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
NJRonbo
Jun 18, 07:32 AM
There has been a lot of speculation that PIN
numbers were given out as early as 7am that
morning -- well in advance of the 12pm CST
preorder start.
If you read posts here on Mac Rumors you
will see that claim is substantiated.
Very unhappy with the way Radio Shack ran
this entire preorder campaign.
numbers were given out as early as 7am that
morning -- well in advance of the 12pm CST
preorder start.
If you read posts here on Mac Rumors you
will see that claim is substantiated.
Very unhappy with the way Radio Shack ran
this entire preorder campaign.
Timepass
Jul 15, 11:18 AM
:o
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.
Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.
Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.
It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.
It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)
Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.
edoates
Apr 7, 11:27 AM
'
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
And I'm going to point out again: 1080p BluRay movies are about 30GB each for a full length movie, not counting the "extras." Even if Netflix et al allowed such quality downloads, most ISPs have a maximum monthly bandwidth limit that is not prominently mentioned when you sign up, but exists none the less (for Comcast Cable, it's 250GB).
If you have only DSL, that's not a big issue because at 3mbs or so, you might not be able to download 250GB in a month ;-) But at 20 to 50mbs with cable, or if Google's 1gbs fiber connections work out, that's only 10 movies a month.
I'd love to see network delivery of everything - cancel Directv, etc., but with the extant bandwidth limitations, I don't think it happening.
BluRay lives.
Eddie O
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
And I'm going to point out again: 1080p BluRay movies are about 30GB each for a full length movie, not counting the "extras." Even if Netflix et al allowed such quality downloads, most ISPs have a maximum monthly bandwidth limit that is not prominently mentioned when you sign up, but exists none the less (for Comcast Cable, it's 250GB).
If you have only DSL, that's not a big issue because at 3mbs or so, you might not be able to download 250GB in a month ;-) But at 20 to 50mbs with cable, or if Google's 1gbs fiber connections work out, that's only 10 movies a month.
I'd love to see network delivery of everything - cancel Directv, etc., but with the extant bandwidth limitations, I don't think it happening.
BluRay lives.
Eddie O
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
Machead III
Sep 19, 09:27 AM
I hope that the MacBook with Core 2 Duo is better than the Core Duo version :)
I hope it's worse?
I hope it's worse?
Willis
Jul 27, 01:45 PM
I havent checked yet to see if someone mentioned it, but in regard to what people expect to see at WWDC, dont worry if it isnt annouced then... Paris Expo is in September.
Mac Pro's might come out then i think.
Mac Pro's might come out then i think.
bigmc6000
Aug 11, 02:31 PM
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
It's same issue of turning people from Windows to a Mac but WORSE. If people had to pay MS a fee for switching I doubt it'd be more than about 1% share. And that's what the US business is right now. Sure there are going to be a few people who pay the 170 to get out of their contract and then another 300 for the iPhone and then, most likely, an increase in their calling plan becuase now noone is free mobile to mobile.
We've headed down this contract path and I personally think it's fine. I don't plan on switching carriers all that often and if it saves me $280 off of a phone for a service I'm going to subscribe to anyway I say go for it.
Really - please pick Cingular - my g/f has it and won't get rid of it so I"m stuck. That's my plea to Steve - PLEASE!!!!
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
It's same issue of turning people from Windows to a Mac but WORSE. If people had to pay MS a fee for switching I doubt it'd be more than about 1% share. And that's what the US business is right now. Sure there are going to be a few people who pay the 170 to get out of their contract and then another 300 for the iPhone and then, most likely, an increase in their calling plan becuase now noone is free mobile to mobile.
We've headed down this contract path and I personally think it's fine. I don't plan on switching carriers all that often and if it saves me $280 off of a phone for a service I'm going to subscribe to anyway I say go for it.
Really - please pick Cingular - my g/f has it and won't get rid of it so I"m stuck. That's my plea to Steve - PLEASE!!!!
sysiphus
Mar 21, 02:39 PM
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office (so that they can shower favours upon their benefactors and sponsors). This is the sixth check/balance, which was not literally codified but has become standard via legal precedent. Those of us who feel that real change is called for still support the (p)resident because he is the one least likely to enact tragic "progress". The system is, nonetheless, dreadfully broken. The idiots that I hold in serious contention are either marginalized into submission or holding seats of power, a situation that serves only to amplify our division, to our detriment.
I see your point. Personally, I'd been hoping Obama might hold ground on issues such as torture/surveillance/getting out of wars, and was fully prepared to accept fiscal policies I would hate (as a conservative--NOT a Republican, mind you) if we'd get some of the aforementioned issues. Gave up on any hope of that when PATRIOT got extended, though...on a few social issues (gay rights) Obama has distinguished himself admirably from his predecessor. However, in the big picture, we've still got a shill for big business and big government/brother, who is overextending the American military with conflicts in which we cannot afford to participate. /end rant
I see your point. Personally, I'd been hoping Obama might hold ground on issues such as torture/surveillance/getting out of wars, and was fully prepared to accept fiscal policies I would hate (as a conservative--NOT a Republican, mind you) if we'd get some of the aforementioned issues. Gave up on any hope of that when PATRIOT got extended, though...on a few social issues (gay rights) Obama has distinguished himself admirably from his predecessor. However, in the big picture, we've still got a shill for big business and big government/brother, who is overextending the American military with conflicts in which we cannot afford to participate. /end rant
bdkennedy1
Apr 11, 12:18 PM
Good. I'm tired of this yearly battle of upgrades.
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 11:40 PM
I just called Apple support, I was on hold for over 20 minutes, then I was disconnected. No wonder people are unhappy :mad: :( :confused:
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
I mentioned this on the battery recall forum, so ignore this post if you've already read it, but I think it may help explain why this sort of thing is happening.
I know it's frustrating to wait to speak to a customer services rep when there's a potential problem with your Mac, but before complaining that Apple has a problem with customer service, let's look at things objectively.
Let's say that Apple sells approximately 12,000 computers per day (a realistic estimate, based on their most recent financial statement). If 1 in 10 customers needs to speak with a customer services rep (this estimate is high, I think, but sometimes more than one consulation is required, so I will be generous with this number), and if a rep can deal with 10 problems per day (a very conservative estimate), then Apple could theoretically provide for all of its computer-related customer service needs with a total of 120 computer-oriented customer support staff (I am excluding iPod customer support staff from this discussion). Now, that number sounds really low, so let's multiply it by 10, for a total of 1200 customer support staff (this would mean that each would normally only have to deal with one customer per day). I understand that 1.8 million batteries were recalled, and this would mean that each customer support rep would have to deal with 1500 recalled batteries. Does anyone think that this can be done, along with all the other usual customer service needs, in a day, a week, or even a month? Apple is going to have to divert staff from other areas to deal with this problem. Remember, the number of batteries recalled is greater than the number of computers Apple ships in a quarter!
Reventon
Nov 12, 02:46 PM
Here's the official release notice from Sony.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only, and not surprised there's no Porsches, since I believe the license to use Porsches are exclusive to EA, no other game from any company really has them. But, I am hoping that GT5 will be released on the 24th, for real this time, instead of being pushed back for the 40,000,001st time.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/11/12/gran-turismo-5-release-date-confirmed-for-november-24th-2010/
as well as the car list and the track list.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/carlist_en.html
http://www.gran-turismo.com/local/jp/data1/products/gt5/courselist_en.html
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only, and not surprised there's no Porsches, since I believe the license to use Porsches are exclusive to EA, no other game from any company really has them. But, I am hoping that GT5 will be released on the 24th, for real this time, instead of being pushed back for the 40,000,001st time.
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
kiljoy616
Apr 25, 01:34 PM
Strange Google is not on the lawsuit since they do the same. I guess its Apple turn to deal with privacy.
WWDC Lurker
Aug 6, 09:23 AM
I still think the apple employee's interview is probably on target of what to expect next week. this is just a developers meeting, not macworld. lots of leopard.
http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/apple/ (http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/news/breaking-inside-apple-on-blu-ray-macpro-and-apple%E2%80%99s-media-center-strategy-what-to-expect-and-not-to-expect-at-wwdc/)
http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/apple/ (http://www.dvdnewsroom.com/news/breaking-inside-apple-on-blu-ray-macpro-and-apple%E2%80%99s-media-center-strategy-what-to-expect-and-not-to-expect-at-wwdc/)
FreeState
Mar 1, 07:01 PM
Probably:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325635/Christian-couple-doomed-foster-carers-homosexuality-views.html
Thats foster care not adoption - two totally separate things. When a child is placed in Foster care the state is paying someone to take care of a child for the state. The state has a duty to not discriminate based on orientation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325635/Christian-couple-doomed-foster-carers-homosexuality-views.html
Thats foster care not adoption - two totally separate things. When a child is placed in Foster care the state is paying someone to take care of a child for the state. The state has a duty to not discriminate based on orientation.
elmimmo
Aug 17, 04:09 AM
It's frustrating to see all the work that anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=10) went through to make the benchmarks, for such a ****** comparison they decided to do in the first place.
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�
drsmithy
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
On the server side.
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
Well, if you can't find evidence of Windows running on well on machine with >2 processors, or of the significant low-level changes Microsoft have made to ensure it does, you aren't looking very hard.
Similarly, if you're one of the "Vista is just XP with a fancy skin" crowd, you've obviously not done much research. The changes in Vista are on par with the scale of changes Apple made to NeXT to get OS X.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:00 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
eseminario
Jun 9, 01:42 AM
Anybody knows if thebunlocked version will be available on launch day too?
SuperCachetes
Mar 5, 11:39 AM
Quite true about 'continuation', but economic models probably require that we do, in order to keep the pyramid growing at the base.
Not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China.
I seriously doubt that would be a legitimate complaint against homosexuality, much less color it as "immoral."
Nevertheless, I know several young, married (straight), professional women who have decided not ever to have children. I can't really identify with that, but it's their choice. Should I tell them they are ****ing up our economic future? :eek:
Not sure what that has to do with the price of rice in China.
I seriously doubt that would be a legitimate complaint against homosexuality, much less color it as "immoral."
Nevertheless, I know several young, married (straight), professional women who have decided not ever to have children. I can't really identify with that, but it's their choice. Should I tell them they are ****ing up our economic future? :eek:
FF_productions
Aug 15, 01:18 PM
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment