Lau
Aug 29, 11:42 AM
...
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
Good post, AlBDamned. :)
Said a lot of things I wanted to say, but a lot more eloquently. My brain is mush this afternoon. :p
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Beric
Mar 12, 03:36 AM
What the hell? Why doesn't the wind blow it into China instead??? :D
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
Anyways, that seems kinda extreme. That looks worse than a nuclear missle strike.
Again, it's a worse-case scenario. Still, get something in the gulf stream, and it's going everywhere.
balamw
Apr 10, 08:08 AM
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
As you said about the heat issue: They just need to adjust their thinking.
My giving in to iTunes on Windows was the first step on my way back to Apple. It's not perfect, but it is "good enough" so that the value I get by not having to deal with it myself far outweighs the lack of perfection.
If you've tried the standard/recommended way for a while and it doesn't work then try looking for alternatives.
It's just like the lack of cut and paste in Finder. Try working without it for a while, use multiple Finder columns and windows. If you really don't like it, then try Path Finder or something like that.
B
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 02:06 PM
I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that.
Yes, I was thinking of your workflow when I said that. :D
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time.
IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene) is fundamentally based on the fact that for parallel tasks you can essentially add all of the "MHz" together, and that lots and lots of slower CPUs will beat a much smaller number of much faster CPUs.
In the case of the current dual and quad core chips, you double the number of cores - but the cores aren't that much slower than the earlier chips. It's a win for lots of workloads, and not much of a loss for a completely single-threaded task.
Yes, I was thinking of your workflow when I said that. :D
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time.
IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene) is fundamentally based on the fact that for parallel tasks you can essentially add all of the "MHz" together, and that lots and lots of slower CPUs will beat a much smaller number of much faster CPUs.
In the case of the current dual and quad core chips, you double the number of cores - but the cores aren't that much slower than the earlier chips. It's a win for lots of workloads, and not much of a loss for a completely single-threaded task.
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 10:23 AM
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.
This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).
The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)
My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)
At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.
legacyb4
Jul 12, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...
strabes
May 2, 04:05 PM
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
solafide
Sep 12, 07:48 PM
I think this will be a great first step for Apple. Long term, I'd like to be able archive all my DVDs and play them through iTunes, just as I have done with my CDs. In the mid to long term, this would mean that Apple would have to work out a deal with a DRM solution with the content owners that would allow for a DVD (obviously this would not work with my currently owned DVDs) to be stored on a computer - authenticating back to the content owner's server, for example.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
relimw
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Is my 8-core MBP going to be announced tomorrow?!? It's a Tuesday after all!!!
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
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 Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
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 Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Fewer and fewer each year.
Fewer and fewer each year.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 9, 09:42 PM
I 'm waiting for Apple to BUY Nintendo.
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
strabes
May 2, 04:05 PM
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
PCUser
Oct 11, 12:44 PM
This isn't going to further the discussion any, but... javahedi, perhaps you could post a link to the C code? I'd very much like to compile it with GCC under Linux and Windows. Just a curious benchmark, IMO. :) Thanks!
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
(Doesn't the benchmark do 1,600,000,000 calculations? 20,000 x 20,000 x 4 = 1,600,000,000... am I missing something? It does two adds, one multiply, and one sqrt per cycle. The loop cycles 400,000,000 times... ?)
63dot
Apr 23, 04:03 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
imperium
Sep 26, 12:05 PM
We miss you over on the "WTF? Where's my C2D MBP?" thread! Good luck with your 8-core wait.. :p
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:14 PM
Do you write brochures for a living?
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
lol. Only for the Chernobyl tourist board. :D
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.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий