h'biki
Mar 20, 05:33 PM
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
manic
Jul 12, 12:42 PM
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
I totally agree, dude. I think theyre entirely different beasts. I was just trying to make a point that keeping yonahs in macbooks just to make the mbp look like a sounder deal doesnt make business sense to apple and that well likely see meroms in MB still this year.
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].
Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.
If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.
Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.
I totally agree, dude. I think theyre entirely different beasts. I was just trying to make a point that keeping yonahs in macbooks just to make the mbp look like a sounder deal doesnt make business sense to apple and that well likely see meroms in MB still this year.
undheim
Nov 5, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
whooleytoo
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
Hah, exactly.
I think it's unnecessarily divisive to argue whether or not an iPad is a "PC" or not. It's a device sold. You can count it in the "PC" category, along with Macs, or "Mobile" category, along with iPhones and MacBooks, or "Larger than pocket devices", along with Macs but excluding iPhones/iTouches.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:46 AM
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
I corrected it.
I corrected it.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:22 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?
You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these?
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Evangelion
Mar 19, 08:43 AM
It's theft, pure and simple.
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Multimedia
Oct 26, 07:06 PM
Mac Pro is only true desktop offering from Apple. That's the problem.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Not that many individuals really want that much power.
However, they do intensive enough tasks requiring more power that exceeds what iMac can offer. The price and power ratio of iMac is just not enough.
Apple really needs something between "Pro" and "Consumer".
If iMac offered the ability to work as monitor, I wouldn't be disappointed by this much.
This is getting old already, but what I need is a decent Conroe Desktop with around 1500 USD price tag.I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Eidorian
Oct 28, 02:07 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:42 PM
[B][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
Well I've mentioned it... In the other 8-cor Mac Pro thread. And I've brought it up more than once.
Yes, this should be a concern and those doing bandwidth-intense operations may find the FSB to be a bottleneck at times. Unless I've missed something along the way, the Mac Pro has an independent bus for each CPU, meaning that each quad core chip will get it's 1333MHz of data flow. I'll have to go check on this... If Apple is indeed stuffing two CPUs onto a single 1333MHz FSB, then there will be a serious problem. Because if I start running into bandwidth issues feeding multiple cores streams of HD video or animation frames, I'm not going to be happy.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Please expound on said reason, for the benefit of all...
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Please expound on said reason, for the benefit of all...
BJNY
Oct 30, 09:41 PM
maxupgrades.com should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.
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?
Warbrain
Oct 8, 10:13 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:46 AM
These people that are trying to claim they're a hardcore gamer, aren't. A true gamer plays games, regardless of where they are played or how they are played. A gamer plays games. There's nothing more too it than that.
and Scarlett Johansson on
combatcolin
Oct 28, 10:57 AM
Bugger only 8 Cores.
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 07:47 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
alexdrinan
Jul 12, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
Mac.World
Apr 24, 02:29 AM
Religion and politics. Two things never to be discussed on forums. Well that and iOS vs Android. :D
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:08 AM
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
No comments:
Post a Comment