milo
Jul 20, 04:43 PM
Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
Geckotek
Apr 4, 12:21 PM
If guns didn't exist, things like this wouldn't be happening.
Yeah, because crime and wars didn't exist before guns.
Someone is extremely naive.
Yeah, because crime and wars didn't exist before guns.
Someone is extremely naive.
Lesser Evets
Mar 22, 03:45 PM
I wonder when Apple will do that again re: GPUs. Ever.
Is it necessary these days? Back in 1999 it was still difficult days to just get video going at a good rate. These days it isn't hard to get good graphics.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
Is it necessary these days? Back in 1999 it was still difficult days to just get video going at a good rate. These days it isn't hard to get good graphics.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
jouster
May 3, 09:16 PM
iRacing with Bootcamp and x-plane should be amazing w/ this set-up ;-)
And Trackir...
And Trackir...
justflie
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
The real question is when will the true video ipod be released? Christmas?
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 04:48 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
If you've got a "buzz" - you're probably more than capable of using your phone, but less than capable behind the wheel.
You don't have to be "falling down drunk" to be dangerous (and over the legal limit).
0815
Apr 25, 01:32 PM
Umm, you do realize the processor can be 10000000x faster, the system is still completely hammed by the 5600rpm hard drive they put in there. Most tasks are faster on an Air then a 17" Pro. And if you're doing heavy lifting get a Mac Pro. People who bought the new processors don't enjoy the benefits 90% of the time.
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
I don't care anymore about speed of the processors. All of the newer generations are faster than what I need - the only upgrade that is worth it for me is going full SSD. I upgraded one older MacBook with an SSD and it's the best upgrade I ever did - worth more than any other upgrade, it is amazing who that old MacBook got from 'good too use' to 'feels insane fast'. Application startup time can't be measured anymore (some apps took >15sec before, now it's less than one second). From that experience, I would rather take a slower processore but the best SSD I can get.
I know, there are some use cases where the processor speed counts - but just for compiling code and running other apps, I don't care anymore. The big bottleneck these days is the harddrive.
You must be a spec sheet reader, not someone who intelligently analyzes what they buy.
I don't care anymore about speed of the processors. All of the newer generations are faster than what I need - the only upgrade that is worth it for me is going full SSD. I upgraded one older MacBook with an SSD and it's the best upgrade I ever did - worth more than any other upgrade, it is amazing who that old MacBook got from 'good too use' to 'feels insane fast'. Application startup time can't be measured anymore (some apps took >15sec before, now it's less than one second). From that experience, I would rather take a slower processore but the best SSD I can get.
I know, there are some use cases where the processor speed counts - but just for compiling code and running other apps, I don't care anymore. The big bottleneck these days is the harddrive.
twoff
Sep 19, 09:33 PM
For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Not so fast!!!!!
Are you sure you will need all of that?
Home network? Perhaps, but iTV may connect directly to your cable/DSL modem.
TV with HDMI/Component inputs? Probably.
A computer with a large HD? Assuming the intent is to stream purchased movies from your computer, sure.
But what if that isn't the real purpose? Imagine an iTV directly connected to the internet, offering access via your TV to:
Internet radio
Internet television
Audio/Video Podcasts
Internet games
Pay per view
... and if you do happen to have that home network, access to your own media content.
No 'productivity' applications, pure entertainment. No worries about backups. No worries about anti-virus.
An entertainment appliance.
Better yet, an entertainment appliance that plays well in a world where more and more people, not just the professionals, are providing content.
The internet today is full of wonderful, bizarre, informative, dull, sick, funny, sad and entertaining things, that require some effort to find. It's a constant battle to stay on top of the latest sites, find the coolest links, etc.
What if iTV is really about taking the work out of that?
Not about making it easier to bring Hollywood into your home, but the world?
Not so fast!!!!!
Are you sure you will need all of that?
Home network? Perhaps, but iTV may connect directly to your cable/DSL modem.
TV with HDMI/Component inputs? Probably.
A computer with a large HD? Assuming the intent is to stream purchased movies from your computer, sure.
But what if that isn't the real purpose? Imagine an iTV directly connected to the internet, offering access via your TV to:
Internet radio
Internet television
Audio/Video Podcasts
Internet games
Pay per view
... and if you do happen to have that home network, access to your own media content.
No 'productivity' applications, pure entertainment. No worries about backups. No worries about anti-virus.
An entertainment appliance.
Better yet, an entertainment appliance that plays well in a world where more and more people, not just the professionals, are providing content.
The internet today is full of wonderful, bizarre, informative, dull, sick, funny, sad and entertaining things, that require some effort to find. It's a constant battle to stay on top of the latest sites, find the coolest links, etc.
What if iTV is really about taking the work out of that?
Not about making it easier to bring Hollywood into your home, but the world?
Multimedia
Sep 12, 03:33 AM
Multimedia, in the Sept.12th thread, you said:
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
Stella
Apr 19, 06:54 AM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
Alcibar
Apr 23, 09:06 AM
Some of us principally us the air for what it was designed for computing on the go i.e. travel. When you travel a lot it is nice to be able to kick back and enjoy a game or two. The ultimate 13 in plays all the recent games pretty well and works as a second laptop with my company provided POS.
apfhex
Sep 4, 06:53 PM
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
This would quite possibly be the best thing ever if it worked well (it would have to at least output 720p, if that's even *possible* over 802.11g/whatever). I've been waiting for a device like that for a rather long time.
This would quite possibly be the best thing ever if it worked well (it would have to at least output 720p, if that's even *possible* over 802.11g/whatever). I've been waiting for a device like that for a rather long time.
triceretops
Mar 30, 11:55 AM
What do you call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of Lake Michigan?
A good start.:D
A good start.:D
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
silentnite
Apr 25, 01:59 PM
It's about time to change it up a bit. Only hoping they get better from here, not all change is good ask iphoto 11 users. Getting a new design right can be a bit tricky.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
It's very, very telling. MS is riding the coattails of their universal licensing racket while Apple keeps changing the face of consumer tech. This day was bound to come.
This is the post-PC era and we'll see MS in decline.
GGJstudios
Apr 12, 07:28 PM
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Leopard:
281058 281059 281060
Snow Leopard:
281066
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Leopard:
281058 281059 281060
Snow Leopard:
281066
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:40 PM
You know what's sleazy? Working with a partner while secretly copying that partner's work to create a competing product.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
The Beatles did this to Apple, oh wait, they had Apple Records and the Apple logo for over 5 years before Apple Computer existed. But I'm sure that is overlooked.
Microsoft did this to Apple with Windows. Google did this to Apple with Android. And Samsung did this with their phone/tablet designs and their UI overlay.
The Beatles did this to Apple, oh wait, they had Apple Records and the Apple logo for over 5 years before Apple Computer existed. But I'm sure that is overlooked.
ppilone
Apr 20, 11:55 AM
I read a good tweet about this:
Password protect your phone. Password protect your computer. Nothing has changed.
Password protect your phone. Password protect your computer. Nothing has changed.
Cjm1
Apr 25, 06:08 PM
Yes. Time for a new change in the design. I am a small majority who really hate the current design due to high prices in repairs. Carbon fiber would be a good addition instead of the aluminium :apple:
mac yahh!!!
Sep 1, 09:12 AM
Invites are suppose to go out today or Monday.
It is definately iTunes related. It is suppose to be adding movies to iTunes.
apperently though there going to be a bit expensive when compared to the tv shows "supposedly"- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/itunes-movie-store-details-emerge-1499-per-new-movie-198140.php
It is definately iTunes related. It is suppose to be adding movies to iTunes.
apperently though there going to be a bit expensive when compared to the tv shows "supposedly"- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/itunes-movie-store-details-emerge-1499-per-new-movie-198140.php
munkery
Mar 3, 11:57 AM
The Android Market is not curated like the App Store for iOS.
Android users have to report if they think an App they installed is malicious. This is a reputation model for auditing apps. Some users must get burned prior to knowing it is malware.
This could still occur in the iOS app store but is less likely to occur given that Apple checks each app to make sure it uses only approved APIs.
Android users have to report if they think an App they installed is malicious. This is a reputation model for auditing apps. Some users must get burned prior to knowing it is malware.
This could still occur in the iOS app store but is less likely to occur given that Apple checks each app to make sure it uses only approved APIs.
Popeye206
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
Balmer is thinking early retirement I'm sure. :p
Who would have ever thunk that little old Apple would eventually pass MS?
Who would have ever thunk that little old Apple would eventually pass MS?
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:57 AM
I think the point is that traffic laws were made to prevent stuff like this in the first place. Had you been obeying the law, there would be no issue, other than maybe a slight annoyance for a couple minutes driving a little slow.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don