toddybody
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
nacnud
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
This iTV seems like a very interesting device, first off it appears to be a HD wireless media streaming box like the Hauppauge Media MVP but hopefuly with a nicer UI.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
However another thing also jumps out, if can you add an ipod via the USB or even an external hard drive then this could give consumers access to the iTunes Store without a computer. That has got to be worth a lot in terms of possible revenue and growing the market rather than just the market share.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:28 PM
SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
BRLawyer
May 2, 01:52 PM
So let me get this straight:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
chabig
Sep 20, 08:00 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
Pay attention. That's NOT the name. That's just what we're calling it today.
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
!� V �!
Apr 9, 09:11 PM
I agree with another commenter regarding removal of default applications i.e. Game Centre, Weather. I believe you can deactivate YouTube via system preferences and it hides the application, why not the same for other default apps.
lazyrighteye
Oct 7, 12:21 PM
The SDK is limited only to the Apple OS, granted, it relies on hooks, however, you are alienating a hell of a lot of people from developing on the platform.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
bluap84
Mar 11, 02:20 AM
i woke up to this...its shocking isnt it. That water is just ripping past anything it likes and leaving it destoryed. The tsunami looks like its going to be massive, and cause trouble for neigbouring countries / cities.
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
mattbatt
Oct 31, 02:08 PM
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. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
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. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Glen Quagmire
Jul 12, 06:22 AM
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core. A cursory glance at Intel's literature or on the web will reveal that Woody is a dual-core beast, nothing more.
(Disclaimer: I read MOR for entertainment, not for real news.)
Anyway, I'll take a 2.67Ghz (or more) dual-dual Mac Pro, please. In black.
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core. A cursory glance at Intel's literature or on the web will reveal that Woody is a dual-core beast, nothing more.
(Disclaimer: I read MOR for entertainment, not for real news.)
Anyway, I'll take a 2.67Ghz (or more) dual-dual Mac Pro, please. In black.
motulist
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
chrono1081
Apr 20, 08:22 PM
I believe you can also pull the hard drive and scan it with another Windows based machine to find the files also.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
TheSlush
Oct 8, 11:11 AM
Gartner's crazy.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:20 AM
A PC is something you work with not a fancy looking gadget. I don't see this happening in the next 5-10 years.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
iJohnHenry
Apr 24, 10:55 AM
Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance?
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Yes, and insecurity, self-delusion (we are the centre of the Universe line of thinking), control, etc. These have all been expounded on in previous threads.
6,000 years is nothing, the mere blink of a eye, if they will but see.
Man's advancement (good and bad) has been nothing short of miraculous in the last Millennium. I'd like to stick around, but it ain't gonna happen.
Lone Deranger
Mar 14, 05:10 AM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
I'd advise you watch less of Hollywood's finest.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 10:04 PM
It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
Sounds to me like your world falls apart when people disagree with you. A small island you must live on when you know all options open to humans who have the same capacity to reason as you. It must feel good to know you are right. Funny how the same arguments you use have be used throughout history and have ALWAYS been seen as wrong over time. You are Midas yelling at the waves.
Personally, I would prefer to have a bunch of people like you around to check me when I think I know what is right. I am happy to let people see the world from their own vantage without the need to "correct" them. I have no doubt that you will learn that your child will not follow your dictums without question. And here you are, on a forum with adults, and you propose that we simply roll over and agree with you. Pah! Tell us what you think and let us reason for ourselves. The fact that you agree or disagree with an individual is of no importance - except maybe to you.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 7, 10:28 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
tf23
Sep 12, 08:14 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Bah humans in general are eejits.
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
No comments:
Post a Comment