archipellago
May 2, 04:32 PM
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
I work for one of the biggest bank in the world and specialise in bank fraud, we liaise with the major law enforcement group all over the world.
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough can save millions....with the right info.
mac users tend to be socially engineered via simpler methods anyway, wonder why that is...? :rolleyes:
wpotere
Mar 18, 01:31 PM
They will never make me switch!!!!!! I will never give them any money!!!!!
No Service...
WTF???
:p
No Service...
WTF???
:p
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 04:30 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
nimbusthegreat
May 6, 12:40 AM
ever since switching to sh&t when i bought the original iphone, i've had problems. it seems to get worse with each passing day. in the last month i've spent over 10 hours on the phone with sh&t trying to get this fixed to no avail. i love my iphone but HATE:mad: the network it's on.
DHagan4755
Oct 28, 04:12 PM
Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
XjeffX
May 5, 04:54 PM
I would be thrilled if only 4.5% of my calls were dropped. While I don't use talk on the phone much, nearly 50% of my calls end up dropping at some point.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
drevvin
May 18, 11:38 AM
drevvin: I don't know where you get your "facts" from, but this is utter B.S. according to everything my friends and I have experienced.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
Other carriers are going to have just as much "network congestion" with the other smartphones they're starting to put on their systems (Android based platforms with "true web browsers", etc.). So if your statement was accurate, we'd see a surge of complaints from Verizon customers, since they got the HTC Hero and Incredible phones. We don't....
Furthermore, the dropped call issue has LONG been an issue for AT&T, no matter which phone you use with them! One of my friends had a Razr and a Blackjack phone on AT&T, and got an iPhone after that. He had the same number of call drops with any of the 3 phones while he was with them -- usually in the same places where their signal was inadequate.
Words like "horrible" are relative... What one person considers horrible, someone else will consider acceptable. But I think it's clear that AT&T is not one of the "better" providers. I have a laundry list of issues with them, including their latest screw-up ... issuing me a VISA rebate card that's not possible to activate, because they didn't set it up properly. (I'm supposed to enter the last 4 digits of my acct. number as my PIN to activate it by phone or over the web, but it won't accept them!) They're also notorious for screwing up my billing by not sending me a bill one month, and then billing me for 2 consecutive months - if I don't proactively sign into the web and pay them first. They're FAR more expensive than some of their competitors for basic voice service, despite the relatively lousy coverage. And even the rollover minutes are subject to cancellation under all sorts of conditions, including when you decide to go from a more expensive plan to a less expensive one or fail to use them up in a 1 year period of time.
An over-saturation of data usage on a cellular network should cause issues with poor DATA performance, but should have NO bearing on dropped calls on the VOICE side. I'd be relatively ok with occasional poor data performance, because that's of secondary importance to me, really. You can always retry a download or wait a little longer for an email to pull in. But the VOICE side needs to be pretty bulletproof. You can't recover from dropped calls without redialing the phone.... AT&T seems to be playing a lot of games of promising data network improvements in response to people's complaints of VOICE issues, hoping they're ignorant of the way the network works.... (Voice issues are more expensive for them to fix since it usually means new towers have to be put up, vs. possibly just increasing some back-haul bandwidth to an existing tower.)
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....and again it mostly boils down to the lack of experience in Apple's Iphone which I myself use but I understand that if I wanna use a phone just for voice I would not use the Iphone I would go with Motorola or Nokia but because I wanna have a (Phone, Camera, PDA, Mp3 Player, Internet and Email Portal, Game Device,) I use the Iphone and don't complain when my voice suffers at the cost of having the ability to do all that. But thats just me.
javajedi
Oct 11, 10:57 AM
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
darwen
Sep 20, 01:02 AM
Did I read Hard Dive? Yay for apple putting a DVR in it!
Oh..... you mean they didnt say there was also a DVR program.... well then. It is time to upgrade that Hard Drive and rewrite the OS so it can run EyeTV (haha - EYETV on iTV... That is funny).
Oh..... you mean they didnt say there was also a DVR program.... well then. It is time to upgrade that Hard Drive and rewrite the OS so it can run EyeTV (haha - EYETV on iTV... That is funny).
dmelgar
Jul 10, 08:09 AM
Is the battery life as bad as I've heard? I think I prefer the Incredible to the Droid X (mainly because of size), but I hate not being able to make it through the day without charging my phone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
Ya, battery life is pretty abysmal. Partly that's because its so easy to load up on power consuming background apps. They're really useful and let me do things you can't do not even on iPhone 4.
I got to the point I couldn't go anywhere without a charger.
I ended up buying an extended life battery. It does make the phone bigger and heavier but not unreasonably so. The bigger battery is awesome. I can run games or surf or navigate all day. It lasts a whole day no matter how hard I try to kill it. My iPhone 3g also would require multiple charges a day because I'm such a heavy user. I often watch 2 or more hours of video a day.
I should also mention that while reception is much better, voice quality is better on the iPhone 4 especially with the noise cancelling microphone.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
CaoCao
Mar 26, 01:32 AM
I'm sorry, but did you really just say that relationships built on love are not stable? REALLY? Because I was always told that love conquers all. And I do believe that, because it does.
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means.
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
Love in it's purest form is what makes humans great. You don't even know what that word means.
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
au revoir
ender land
Apr 23, 11:20 PM
You are correct ... there are no Gods ... zero ... nada ... zilch.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
*shrug*
I guess this sort of style of posting is why the question in the OP is relevant. Thanks guys for providing examples of what I was talking about in my initial posts in this thread.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the past few hours of posting, as I greatly enjoy people challenging my beliefs and causing me to think through positions I hold and believe. Thank you to those of you who participated in the actual discussion (this includes you Mac'nCheese, in spite of your last post). If any of you honestly do care to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 09:05 AM
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?
What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
generik
Sep 26, 01:39 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
calzon65
May 5, 08:38 PM
Great phone, crappy AT&T service, Apple should develop a version to run on Verizon.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:14 PM
Do you write brochures for a living?
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
BC2009
Mar 18, 12:22 PM
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:24 AM
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
I was thinking the EyeTV would plug into the USB port on the Mac (as it does today), but the iTV will let you watch it and control it from your living room.
But actually, I am starting to see your (and dobbin's) point. In some ways it might be more convenient if the EyeTV actually plugged into the iTV, and gave you the option of streaming back to you Mac... at least then your EyeTV Tuner would be near where your Sat/Cable/Ariel socket is. But now it's starting to sound expensive and more like a Mac Mini...
SL
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:36 PM
Opinions should be the same. Nuclear is clean and efficient, but has potential dangers. Shouldn't take a meltdown to remind anyone of that.
efficient yes, clean NO.
efficient yes, clean NO.
