diamond.g
Apr 21, 09:00 AM
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
%IMG_DESC_2%
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
jdsam
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
So, I'm psyched to see an update to FCP, but what happens to Final Cut Studio. Is all the functionality of the other apps bundled into FCPx? I could see apple dropping DVD studio pro and bundle in the functionality of color, but who am I to say. I'm just wondering what is happening.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:23 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
mostman
Sep 20, 03:42 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
Well.... not quite.
You see the ElGato stuff does not decode digital channels. Not only that, they can't even control your Comcast cable box to tell it to change the channel. So any channel that is digital (>125) you are going to have to manually change before recording.
Sound appealing? No, of course not.
This is the reason solutions like ElGato have not really caught on yet. Add a cable card system and its game over.
-Mike
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
I don't think the box will have local storage per-se. - it isn't advertised (yet) as a DVR. It's more like the Elgato EyeHome as it streams content stored on your computer. So the HD issue will be on the computer.
That's why I put the "EDIT" in my above post. Thanks. :)
And I think it's a brilliant idea allowing it to stream from your computer. Looks like I'll be getting an external terabyte drive. :D
That's why I put the "EDIT" in my above post. Thanks. :)
And I think it's a brilliant idea allowing it to stream from your computer. Looks like I'll be getting an external terabyte drive. :D
elbirth
Oct 21, 11:53 AM
Big news. 2GB Mac Pro sticks now cost same as 1GB sticks per GB.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
1GB sticks are $175 each. 2GB sticks are now $350 each. This is HUGE.
So now a 4GB kit (2GBx2) is only $699 at 1-800-4MEMORY via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459).
Fantastic! I don't know about you, but I believe this represents a sea change in the pricing of 2GB modules. I don't know how long ago these prices reached parity, but I have been looking for this time for quite a while.
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
Porchland
Mar 18, 03:12 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
But since "DRM sucks," I guess you'd rather the store give it away for free and go out of business when the cashflow immediately dries up.
But since "DRM sucks," I guess you'd rather the store give it away for free and go out of business when the cashflow immediately dries up.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 06:02 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)I'm with you there. Not new that there is a small group here that can't understand why the Conroe card isn't being played yet. Kentsfield has got to be coming to a Mac Pro soon, iMacs next Spring and then Kentsfield's successor Bloomsfield in the 2008 iMacs later. Then in 2009 let's see 8-core Yorkfield in that year's iMacs please.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)I'm with you there. Not new that there is a small group here that can't understand why the Conroe card isn't being played yet. Kentsfield has got to be coming to a Mac Pro soon, iMacs next Spring and then Kentsfield's successor Bloomsfield in the 2008 iMacs later. Then in 2009 let's see 8-core Yorkfield in that year's iMacs please.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:40 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
Excellent summary.
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
Excellent summary.
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 08:52 PM
So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:49 AM
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.
Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)
Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !
I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !
Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)
...truly enough.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
Multimedia
Jul 12, 10:06 AM
So, what, this leaves us with:
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo?I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.Fair enough. Thanks for helping me understand why you think the line won't be split. I see Boncellis' point of view as well. Well we only have 26 more days to find out.
I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo?I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.Fair enough. Thanks for helping me understand why you think the line won't be split. I see Boncellis' point of view as well. Well we only have 26 more days to find out.
I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 12:50 PM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:41 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera.
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:33 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
bokdol
Sep 26, 02:18 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
not mac book pro...
mac pro
not mac book pro...
mac pro
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:40 PM
Somewhere I think I read that Fukushima Dai-ichi was just a few months away from final retirement of the entire facility after twice its designed lifetime. But there almost certainly must be spent fuel rods in all the basins, since fuel changes are done at least as often as 18 months and spent fuel takes two to four years to cool enough to be safely moved offsite. The fuel still contains enough U-235 to produce considerable heat from just decay, but internal pollutants reduce its ability to contribute in a reactive core. Presumably, spent fuel is not considered to be able/likely to generate a critical event (neutron flux is too compromised by pollutants) so it would not require such sturdy containment as would a reactor.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 25, 03:49 PM
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
