w0by
Aug 23, 12:47 PM
Eh, I just blame AT&T for having the iPhone and not fixing their issues. I pay my ** $120 ** phone bill every month for my iPhone, and I don't even have unlimited calling/texting, so therefore AT&T needs to fix their crap.
thogs_cave
Jul 12, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
lbraud
Apr 6, 11:23 AM
Imagine Joe, who is strongly considering buying a Mac for the first time. He goes to the popular Mac sites to get excited about the purchase by being involved in the community. What does Joe find when he visits MacRumors? Big capital letters on the side bar, "SWITCHERS ONLY," discussing all possible reasons that switching could lead to, albeit minor, bad experiences. Joe wants to be informed. Joe reads the three pages of differences that other people found annoying.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed�just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed�just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
rugbyboy
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
Now see its a step in the right direction to be sure. There will be features announced which will make it more attractive
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:20 PM
I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.
Kilamite
May 2, 09:15 AM
I don't believe this can install without user intervention? Even the screenshot shows you need to click continue.
DrGruv1
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
but it's still great to see :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
electroshock
Oct 8, 07:04 AM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:05 PM
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Considering the quality of the content on iTunes... I'd say what I stream is about on par so I'm not loosing out too much...
And your first comment only applied to DRM protected content... for anything else, EyeHome is totally integrated with iTunes, iPhoto and movies...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
Salacion
Apr 20, 06:23 PM
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 06:46 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
charliehustle
Oct 7, 08:02 PM
Oh so now we have Android. First it was the Palm Pre that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen, then it was this or that touch screen phone that was going to kill the iPhone and that did not happen. When Android first came out with the G1 that was going to kill the iPhone, that did not happen and now we have more Android devices killing the iPhone, not going to happen. This is a load of crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. Android is hard to develop for and is at least two years behind Apple at the moment, how is this going to happen? This is the stupidest prediction I have ever heard from people who don't like Apple for some reason that I cannot understand, let's stop predicting which device is going to be King and just see what happens!!! The main reason I say this will not happen is that Android is only being adopted by technophiles and not everyday people, the iPhone is being adopted by apple technophiles and everyday people, it is the everyday people that decide which device is king and they will not adopt Android unless the OS is completely overhauled in a different direction, people like my 63 year old father have an Iphone now and there is no way he would ever want or use an Android based phone. Tech analysts need to think of everyday people when they predict this crap and not techies who hate Apple for some reason or another!!!
no offense, but market share is completely different from "superior product"
they do not go hand in hand, and a company with a larger market share can put out an inferior product (example: Nokia)
more phones with android are going to be sold because there are 40 times the number of handsets android is going to be on..
not a big deal, and apple fans should not be threatened..
the author is just stating simple facts..
no offense, but market share is completely different from "superior product"
they do not go hand in hand, and a company with a larger market share can put out an inferior product (example: Nokia)
more phones with android are going to be sold because there are 40 times the number of handsets android is going to be on..
not a big deal, and apple fans should not be threatened..
the author is just stating simple facts..
TheFink
Oct 9, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 07:34 AM
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
iBug2
Apr 20, 08:16 PM
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
AceWilfong
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
OnionMike
Jun 7, 02:42 PM
i have been dropping calls a lot lately for some reason. up until last year i have no drop call but this year i have **** load of drops. COME ON ATT!! :mad:
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 01:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
You have nothing with no wind.
Even if wind farms were 100% efficient, they don't hold a candle to nuclear output.
Besides, we don't have room here in Japan for wind farms so it makes no difference.
Alternative energy is not a viable source everywhere in the world, plain and simple. That's all I'm saying.
I was trying to explain that then 30% number is you can count on 30% of the total out put nation wide at any movement in time.
I am not talking about some random wind turbine giving 30% of their out put all the time but when you have lot of turbines spread all over the country you can count on 30% of them.
As for a problem with nuclear power is water. They require a LOT and I mean a LOT of water per MW compared to lets say Coal. One of our current largest problem is having enough water to cooling and producing power.
Sabenth
Sep 20, 08:35 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
No comments:
Post a Comment