eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:25 PM
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere! :rolleyes:
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
Westside guy
Sep 20, 01:15 PM
It seems like a lot of people don't really grok what the advantages of having a network really are. You don't need a full-blown computer dedicated to the television - e.g. yet another Media Center PC or Myth-TV box. That "solution" is too expensive, way too overpowered, and too energy-hungry for what it needs to do. I suspect the hard drive inside the iTV is somewhat equivalent of "network attached storage" - the computational heavy lifting, such as it is, will occur on your actual computer; but it'll be using the iTV's drive rather than its own drive for storing the shows etc. I imagine you can plop a DVD into your computer and watch it on your TV, too - if you're watching a movie, you're probably not using your computer's DVD drive at the same time anyway.
Heck, this is the sort of thing I always wished Tivo would come up with. I have two Tivos - but really all I need is one Tivo plus a wireless receiver that'd let me watch shows on a second television. Doubly so now that Tivo is selling their own two-tuner units.
This whole iTV thing will be rather interesting. Depending on how it plays out, I can see myself dumping Tivo and buying an EyeTV (the El Gato (?) product). This Apple iTV doesn't need to be a PVR per se, but for flexibility's sake if EyeTV can hook into this whole system - for the people that want to still have over-the-air/cable television - it could be pretty sweet.
Heck, this is the sort of thing I always wished Tivo would come up with. I have two Tivos - but really all I need is one Tivo plus a wireless receiver that'd let me watch shows on a second television. Doubly so now that Tivo is selling their own two-tuner units.
This whole iTV thing will be rather interesting. Depending on how it plays out, I can see myself dumping Tivo and buying an EyeTV (the El Gato (?) product). This Apple iTV doesn't need to be a PVR per se, but for flexibility's sake if EyeTV can hook into this whole system - for the people that want to still have over-the-air/cable television - it could be pretty sweet.
sterno74
Oct 26, 01:54 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.
Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?
It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.
I saw on one of the tech sites that they dropped a sample of the quad core xeon into the mac pro and it worked perfectly. There might be some cooling issues, but given that the quads actually run at a slightly lower clock speed, I doubt it.
Getting lots of cores is nice and all, but we aren't going to be seeing the kind of steady speed improvements that we used to. Not everything is readily threadable, and the less effective the threading, the less advantage you get from having all those cores. I mean sure you can encode four different movies at the same time or something like that, but in a real world use case, does it matter?
It's going to be a while before the software catches up with the hardware so in the mean time you're better off with a lower number of high speed cores than a lot of low speed ones.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 11:08 AM
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
mscriv
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
My Mac keyboard has "home" and "end" keys. They function differently in basic use from Windows though. If you are talking about being able to jump to the beginning and end of a line of text (like in Word) then the Mac shortcut is command + Left or Right Arrow depending on whether you are going to the beginning or end of the line.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
charliehustle
Oct 8, 11:16 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Speedy2
Oct 7, 11:10 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
silentnite
May 4, 11:49 AM
Safari is not set as a default for me & I only use it if Mozilla is stalling but this is only the beginning for apple with it's continued success comes a lot of security issues for the future.
slinger1968
Nov 3, 03:14 AM
A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.
God of Biscuits
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:27 AM
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
Well please don't mis attribute that vile anti-gay message to me.
Thanks.
Well please don't mis attribute that vile anti-gay message to me.
Thanks.
Azathoth
May 2, 10:51 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
Windows Vista & 7 have the UAC - meaning that admin accounts are effectively the same as on *nix & OS X.
It works well (on Win7)
Windows Vista & 7 have the UAC - meaning that admin accounts are effectively the same as on *nix & OS X.
It works well (on Win7)
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Cappy
Oct 9, 12:09 PM
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.
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.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 11:18 PM
No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
miles01110
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:12 PM
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance. Your morals are good for you and no one else.
So if my morality tells me that it is right for me to kill you, then you support my choice to do so?
