Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
archipellago
May 2, 04:07 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Steve Jobless
Sep 12, 04:26 PM
any pictures?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 03:19 AM
Care to elaborate?
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
Xeperu
Mar 13, 08:25 AM
The problematic power plants in Japan are of a very old and outdated design. Generation 3, 3+ and Generation 4 design are much much safer. I'm still a firm defender of nuclear power, and I believe with new technologies it is still the future.
superleccy
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Multimedia
Oct 30, 08:20 PM
I am also of the opinion that Apple should not sell the 512MB FB-DIMM modules since they only run at half-bandwidth of the 1 and 2 GB modules. Or they should offer the ability to buy the Mac Pro with no RAM. That would be interesting. I'm not sure if they'd go for selling a system config that would require a third-party purchase just to make it work.Doubtful. What I'm hoping for is a base of two 1GB sticks, losing the two 512 sticks as you say they should end selling with this update. An 8-core Mac Pro would not run very well with only 1GB of slower RAM. I believe an 8-core Mac is going to want 8GB of RAM to run properly but I imagine 4GB would be enough for fairly decent operation. Depends on your apps. The ones I like to run don't use much RAM at all.
AppliedVisual
Oct 28, 01:03 PM
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
SGI tried to build more popularity for MIPS by spinning it off as a totally separate company in the late '90s. But other than embedded applications and various closed architecture implementations, the MIPS CPUs became a dead product line. Too bad, they were always fairly nice CPUs... As for the Itanium deal, the only major UNIX vendor that essentially sunk with the Itanic was SGI. Sun just brushed it off and moved on, as did HP and IBM. SGI's ship was sinking long before thier jump to IA64... They initially started to even go x86 and it was totally obvious that this would work for them. But I think their corporate leadership and investors panicked when suddenly they had two Windows systems on the market that were outperforming their current model Irix workstations for less than half the price. If SGI was smart, they would have dug right in and milked that cow for all it was worth and continued to expand their x86 lines... 64bit x86 was already on the drawing board back then so it wasn't an unknown factor. SGI would have done well to port Irix to x86, too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Altix is nice, but hardly unique in todays marketplace. That and it's still Itanium based, which is a glaring red flag. I'd much rather go for one of Sun's large-scale solutions based on Opteron CPUs. It may only give me 90% of the per-CPU performance with 70% of the bandwidth across the entire cluster, but it's also half the price and I know that the CPU architecture will still be supported several years from now. Itanium is all but dead and Intel doesn't even seem interested in supporting it anymore. Most major workstation and server vendors have dropped it already and Intel has missed ship dates for most of the IA64 products on their roadmap. SGI claims they came out of bankruptcy a very focused and agile company... Yet they're still producing products based on a CPU architecture most the rest of the industry has already written off. So yeah, niche market for sure. SGI can't even muster the resources to continue development of Irix and it's being discontinued this year. So now all they have is some overgrown IA64 Linux boxes. What's going to happen if their current sales figures stay about the same and their own technologies dry up? They're just going to become another business-oriented Linux server vendor placing off-the-shelf components in some of the prettiest boxes around for a super-premium price. ...That's practically all they are now and the only thing that really differentiates their products (other than the cool system bezels and rack enclosures) is their NUMALink design.
I used to be very fond of SGI and their products, but that was years ago... The past 6 years have been a continuous downhill spiral and the company I once loved has been dead and gone for a long time now.
SGI tried to build more popularity for MIPS by spinning it off as a totally separate company in the late '90s. But other than embedded applications and various closed architecture implementations, the MIPS CPUs became a dead product line. Too bad, they were always fairly nice CPUs... As for the Itanium deal, the only major UNIX vendor that essentially sunk with the Itanic was SGI. Sun just brushed it off and moved on, as did HP and IBM. SGI's ship was sinking long before thier jump to IA64... They initially started to even go x86 and it was totally obvious that this would work for them. But I think their corporate leadership and investors panicked when suddenly they had two Windows systems on the market that were outperforming their current model Irix workstations for less than half the price. If SGI was smart, they would have dug right in and milked that cow for all it was worth and continued to expand their x86 lines... 64bit x86 was already on the drawing board back then so it wasn't an unknown factor. SGI would have done well to port Irix to x86, too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Altix is nice, but hardly unique in todays marketplace. That and it's still Itanium based, which is a glaring red flag. I'd much rather go for one of Sun's large-scale solutions based on Opteron CPUs. It may only give me 90% of the per-CPU performance with 70% of the bandwidth across the entire cluster, but it's also half the price and I know that the CPU architecture will still be supported several years from now. Itanium is all but dead and Intel doesn't even seem interested in supporting it anymore. Most major workstation and server vendors have dropped it already and Intel has missed ship dates for most of the IA64 products on their roadmap. SGI claims they came out of bankruptcy a very focused and agile company... Yet they're still producing products based on a CPU architecture most the rest of the industry has already written off. So yeah, niche market for sure. SGI can't even muster the resources to continue development of Irix and it's being discontinued this year. So now all they have is some overgrown IA64 Linux boxes. What's going to happen if their current sales figures stay about the same and their own technologies dry up? They're just going to become another business-oriented Linux server vendor placing off-the-shelf components in some of the prettiest boxes around for a super-premium price. ...That's practically all they are now and the only thing that really differentiates their products (other than the cool system bezels and rack enclosures) is their NUMALink design.
I used to be very fond of SGI and their products, but that was years ago... The past 6 years have been a continuous downhill spiral and the company I once loved has been dead and gone for a long time now.
emotion
Sep 21, 09:11 AM
Ha ha how's that for conjecture? :)
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
I guess we'll see. I'll be surprised but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:40 AM
Washington Post 12Mar2011 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031205493.html?hpid=topnews):
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation at the reactor exceeded legal limits and that it was "highly possible" a partial meltdown was underway.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation at the reactor exceeded legal limits and that it was "highly possible" a partial meltdown was underway.
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 04:00 AM
I have absolutely no idea what people complaining here about it going non-pro is talking about.
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered:
What about XML and EDLs in and out of FCP X?
What about multicam and multi-clips?
Can I turn the �magnetic timeline� off?
Can I turn all the pre-processing that happens on ingest off (if I'm intentionally shaking the camera I *don't* want FCP to auto-stabilize it)?
How does media management work?
Is there a Media Manager tool?
Can I remap the keyboard?
Is there a better title tool?
What about multi-user environments?
Is the app as mouse-centric as it appears to be?
Are all settings global or can I have project specific settings (such as telling FCP that the capture scratch for Project A is in folder A and the capture scratch for Project B is in folder B)?
I could go on but I think I've made my point. Now, all of this stuff is pretty mundane to cover the first time they show off the app so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned. FCP X still has a lot more questions than answers right now, IMO. I can't wait to learn more about it though.
Lethal
Did you even watch the coverage? Or did you just look at screenshots?
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered:
What about XML and EDLs in and out of FCP X?
What about multicam and multi-clips?
Can I turn the �magnetic timeline� off?
Can I turn all the pre-processing that happens on ingest off (if I'm intentionally shaking the camera I *don't* want FCP to auto-stabilize it)?
How does media management work?
Is there a Media Manager tool?
Can I remap the keyboard?
Is there a better title tool?
What about multi-user environments?
Is the app as mouse-centric as it appears to be?
Are all settings global or can I have project specific settings (such as telling FCP that the capture scratch for Project A is in folder A and the capture scratch for Project B is in folder B)?
I could go on but I think I've made my point. Now, all of this stuff is pretty mundane to cover the first time they show off the app so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned. FCP X still has a lot more questions than answers right now, IMO. I can't wait to learn more about it though.
Lethal
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
The transsexual kinda kills the whole message though. "Learn to accept yourself for who you are, except if you can't, then deform your body to look like someone else."
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:17 PM
I loved the iPhone, but the AT&T service is crap! It drops calls with 5 Bars and 3G, so the Towers are not the issue. If Steve Jobs would wake F&*$ up and get with Verizon then AT&T would go out of Business. I am now with Verizon which is where I came from to get the iPhone and I have not dropped a call yet?
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
acearchie
Apr 13, 05:14 AM
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
Does that mean that all the features will be retained then since if I can currently operate a tool from my keyboard in FCP7 then surely that same tool will be available in FCPX.
On a side note Lethal wanted to know whether the keyboard was programmable not if it was the same layout.
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Hmmm could have been positioned better personally but it�s better than nothing!
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:49 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
dgree03
Apr 28, 09:30 AM
Let me try to explain what I mean from a different angle:
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 11:28 AM
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
nixd2001
Oct 10, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by AtomBoy
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
As a rule of thumb, there will always be a faster machine available if you're prepared to spend more, and whatever you buy will become obsolete somewhere between next day and next year. If speed is the only consideration, you'll probably be disappointed whatever you do and whenever you do it.
Decide your budget. Decide what you want to do with it. Find a shop where you can try it and see if it works for you. Work on the basis that you won't get the perfect machine, so decide whether whatever you're considering is good enough. Consider the software you'll want (and it's price!) as well as the hardware. Work on the basis that different people want different things from their computer(s) and get something that matchs your needs rather than whichever gets the loudest shouts for (or against).
And no, I'm not going to try and make a recommendation because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of all the details of what will meet your requirements.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:12 PM
LGBTQ teens are at the highest risk factor for suicide among ANY of their peers. That is why videos like this are more important than say "fat bullying."
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
dandaley
Oct 7, 12:12 PM
Gartner tries to shape the future of technology with their reports. They are not trying to predict anything. Managers look at these reports and shape their strategy based on them. I have been at companies that "listened" to Gartner to help shape their direction. Sad, but true.
Lennholm
May 2, 10:05 AM
Hmm, this sounds like Internet Explorer five years ago.
