edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
appleguy123
Apr 10, 11:36 AM
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
MovieCutter
Apr 12, 10:14 PM
If this really is to non-linear editing as Henry Ford was to the automobile, it's time to learn how to drive this thing like a Formula One driver...because everyone's going to THINK they know how to use this.
mkoval11
Oct 7, 07:00 PM
The iPhone clearly has the traction and the momentum. Unless Apple builds a clunky square with a cheap keyboard and a lousy screen that barley has room for a giant clock, the iPhone will remain king. See who laughs last when iPhone crosses 100M units sold.
Oh BTW, did I mention they have the App Store. The ecosystem is well defined and by the time 2012 comes around they App Store will have over 100,000 apps.
Oh BTW, did I mention they have the App Store. The ecosystem is well defined and by the time 2012 comes around they App Store will have over 100,000 apps.
takao
Mar 13, 05:18 PM
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 07:12 PM
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
One can delete icons by dragging and dropping them onto the desktop from another app or the dock. However, they are not permanently deleted from your hard drive. It sounds strange at first, but it is pretty cool once you get use to seeing the icon mystified, saying it is thrash. :eek: Both Windows and Mac thrash icons are waste paper baskets. :)
There are videos on Apple's web-site titled something like "switching from Windows to Mac 101 or the switch basics." I do not remember the exact title, but mine are close. These tutorials will be helpful! Check them out! Also, you can drag items such as photos and video directly onto the desktop with the mouse.
As far as regretting the "switch," no way! :) OS X is easy to use and the 'finder' is pretty much idiot proof! While using Windows, I struggle to find simply things like documents and system files, because you have to add exc and other computer jargon to find what you are looking for. Point being: using the finder incorporated into Mac OS X to hunt down documents and system files is easy. Plus you can search specific aspects of the hard drive. Like the entire hard drive, your music library, applications, a.k.a. apps (which are programs in Windows land,) or your documents. Each are separate folders to conduct a search for 'X' file, app, or song.
I am not bashing Windows though! This must be noted, because I am not a wiz with any operating system. Each OS has its pros and cons and I am unfairly pointing out the cons of Windows, because that is your request. I like to use computers, as I am a button pusher, but I do not how they tic. :D
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 11:17 AM
Closed-mouthed officials, and open-mouthed media.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 12:22 PM
Here's Toby (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGNuZTXONU), he knows all the chords (to be plucked).
rxse7en
Oct 13, 06:55 PM
Thank you very much for that tip and link. You saved me all but $11 in sales tax. So it was like getting the $1444 deal without tax. $1349 plus tax. I pulled the trigger this morning and hope to receive it next week.Looking forward to maximum desktop in one screen. Long story is I ordered the 24" about 6 weeks ago then realized I wanted the 30" when it went on sale for like $1600 + tax so canceled the next day. But Dell screwed up my credit for 6 weeks so I couldn't even order the 30 until today and you came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
PittAir
Apr 20, 11:11 PM
Ask yourself what you do with your phone.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
carlgo
May 9, 12:31 PM
There is only one rational, consumer-friendly way to deal with this: allow carriers of our choice and offer plans that reflect the amount of use.
Right now it is like if you buy a BMW you can only use Shell gas and have to sign a contract to buy 200 gallons a month even even if you don't drive much. And, you have to pay for 200 gallons even if you do want to drive a lot, but the gas isn't even available!
Of course, you should have known that there are no Shell stations nearby and that others are driving around in perfectly good Fords and Kias that can fuel up at any of the other gas stations in town.
Maybe you really did believe the Shell employees who said a new station would be up soon. Of course, you do know that they might be tempted to sign you up to a contract that forced you to buy gas that wasn't actually available? Sort of a double-dip, eh?
And, maybe you didn't realize that many of the Shell stations that are open, in neighboring towns, only have one pump and that there are long lines of people waiting to fuel up their BMWs.
Shell says that they will build more stations, but mostly they just put new logos on the existing pumps and advertise more. Turns out that more pumps cost money and are opposed by many residents.
So, Shell simply charges more for the existing gas! And, they sell apps and BMWs and gas cards in the convenience store. Now they make so much money from all this that they actually give a large percentage back to BMW!
BMW is able to sell their cars for half the price because of this subsidy. Selling a very desirable and expensive car cheap and locking customers into a kick-back exclusive arrangement to regain the profit margin is genius. And, Shell can charge enough to cover the kickback and still make a huge profit. Pure genius.
The head of BMW, the improbably-named Herr Jobs is renowned all over the world for pulling off this marketing arrangement and greatly enriching both BMW and Shell. This business model will be studied for a hundred years.
In fact, it is so successful that other gas companies want to sell gas for BMWs as well. The problem is that it would cost a fortune to change their gas formulation to work in BMWs and they want BMW to instead change the fuel system to work with their gas.
Herr Jobs sees no reason to change the arrangement with Shell because he gets the financial breakdown every day and he first looks at the column showing the take from Shell.
As a kid, Herr Jobs loved Scrooge McDuck and hoped someday he would be diving into huge piles of money in the basement of his lavish new McMansion. Now he can do that!
It will all end. In time we will be able to buy the gas of our choice, from stations that are open in our area and which have fast, friendly service. We will actually be able to buy just the gas we need.
It is just hoped that this change will happen sooner than later because we consumers will certainly be better off when it does. Don't worry about Scrooge McDuck. He is a resilient old duck who will do quite fine and will remain the Head Duck on the pond as long as he wants.
Right now it is like if you buy a BMW you can only use Shell gas and have to sign a contract to buy 200 gallons a month even even if you don't drive much. And, you have to pay for 200 gallons even if you do want to drive a lot, but the gas isn't even available!
Of course, you should have known that there are no Shell stations nearby and that others are driving around in perfectly good Fords and Kias that can fuel up at any of the other gas stations in town.
Maybe you really did believe the Shell employees who said a new station would be up soon. Of course, you do know that they might be tempted to sign you up to a contract that forced you to buy gas that wasn't actually available? Sort of a double-dip, eh?
And, maybe you didn't realize that many of the Shell stations that are open, in neighboring towns, only have one pump and that there are long lines of people waiting to fuel up their BMWs.
Shell says that they will build more stations, but mostly they just put new logos on the existing pumps and advertise more. Turns out that more pumps cost money and are opposed by many residents.
So, Shell simply charges more for the existing gas! And, they sell apps and BMWs and gas cards in the convenience store. Now they make so much money from all this that they actually give a large percentage back to BMW!
BMW is able to sell their cars for half the price because of this subsidy. Selling a very desirable and expensive car cheap and locking customers into a kick-back exclusive arrangement to regain the profit margin is genius. And, Shell can charge enough to cover the kickback and still make a huge profit. Pure genius.
The head of BMW, the improbably-named Herr Jobs is renowned all over the world for pulling off this marketing arrangement and greatly enriching both BMW and Shell. This business model will be studied for a hundred years.
In fact, it is so successful that other gas companies want to sell gas for BMWs as well. The problem is that it would cost a fortune to change their gas formulation to work in BMWs and they want BMW to instead change the fuel system to work with their gas.
Herr Jobs sees no reason to change the arrangement with Shell because he gets the financial breakdown every day and he first looks at the column showing the take from Shell.
As a kid, Herr Jobs loved Scrooge McDuck and hoped someday he would be diving into huge piles of money in the basement of his lavish new McMansion. Now he can do that!
It will all end. In time we will be able to buy the gas of our choice, from stations that are open in our area and which have fast, friendly service. We will actually be able to buy just the gas we need.
It is just hoped that this change will happen sooner than later because we consumers will certainly be better off when it does. Don't worry about Scrooge McDuck. He is a resilient old duck who will do quite fine and will remain the Head Duck on the pond as long as he wants.
Shotglass
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:37 PM
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 03:43 PM
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
Interesting...
You are confusing the Big Bang Theory with current biochemical theories regarding primitive life with planetary formation. They are all independent working models of how events have unfolded in the past.
The only thing they happen to have in common is stand in the way of stubborn beliefs.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 06:24 PM
I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0415067/).
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 10:23 AM
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment