Anonymous Freak
Oct 4, 03:28 PM
Does anyone know how much power a Cloverton 2.33GHz will draw compared to the current Woodcrest 3GHz? I hope Apple's power supply is adequate for Cloverton, 4 SATA hard drives, 2 optical drives, and better PCIe graphics card.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
Woodcrest 3.0 is rated at 80W per processor. Clovertown is claimed to be 'about the same.' Anandtech measured an early Clovertown sample at about 130W, though. Even at that, they had no issues in a Mac Pro.
It would have been silly of Apple to design a 'high end workstation' system without at least 100W of leeway in the power. I mean, they sell it with two optical drives, four hard drives, and up to four video cards. There *HAS* to be enough power in there.
ZenoVT
May 8, 03:41 PM
I live in manhattan and the call failed frequency is soo great that if I'm connected to wifi, you bet I'm using skype to make my calls. I hate when I'm on hold with a company going through those annoying labyrinth of an automated they set up to tie us in a loop, and when i finally get a hold of a representative I get a Call Failed error on my iPhone.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 06:08 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
toddicus
Nov 3, 06:08 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 06:22 PM
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 06:08 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
Leaches were used back then, right.
(Bad example, leaches, fly larva, etc, are valued assets in today's medicine.)
i_am_a_cow
Mar 19, 05:51 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.
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
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.
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that? Are you saying that Linux is bad, and Apple is good? Do you think that Apple is doing the right thing by not preventing these issues in the first place (by failing to open up technology standards or port multimedia software to other operating systems)? I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.
Photics
Apr 9, 10:26 AM
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Full of Win
May 6, 08:15 PM
How much of this is from the GSM technology used? Can't CDMA pass through walls and other obsticals better than gsm ones? One would think this would make for less dropped calls.
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:54 PM
Hi AtomBoy......great english for being from Japan, or are you an ex-pat?
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
milo
Sep 12, 03:33 PM
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
LagunaSol
Apr 9, 09:24 PM
Real StarCraft for iPad, Blizzard. Make it happen.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
Trishul
Oct 30, 08:59 PM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
What was your reasoning?
And what's up with you not knowing the 8-core was coming? This is very old news. Some of us have known since early this year. :confused: :eek:
i wish i could have kept the Quad for some of those reasons mentioned, but it's purely down to financial reasons, i simply wouldn't be able to afford keeping both. I'm a film-maker just starting out, so i'm not getting a very steady income that is related to work done with a computer to be able to justify such expenditures etc.. firstly i got a decent price for my quad, i wouldn't have sold otherwise, it'll only be a few hundered pounds for me to upgrade to a mac pro, but i sold partially because i'm one of those who likes the newest etc.. but main actual reasons are
1) I mainly use HDV with Final Cut Studio, so the performance bump would be very useful for me, obviously more of a luxury, FCP worked fine on the quad, but anything better is worth it. 2) I use adobe but any of the few deadlines i have don't really rely on the use of adobe software, but i know in a few months the use of adobe stuff will be much more important to me and i'll have to buy a license, CS3 will probably be out by then as well as other Universal Binary converts, and i imagine the Quad will only be worth having for people needing a backup machine, the value of it will drop like anything, no?? rather sell now while the value of it is still fairly high, and especially because they are out of stock everywhere. 3) I get a windows capable machine that is powerful enough to let me use some software i wouldn't have been able to use before on my 2.4ghz, 1gb PC, as well as run games properly on my 30". Buying a seperate similar specced Windows PC wouldn't be worth it for me, but the situation with bootcamp is just perfect for my needs.
If i was running a steady business, no way would i have sold the Quad, but i'd rather sell now while i can afford to be sans mac, rather than down the line when i know the mac pro will be extremely sought after and get bottom dollar for the quad.
oh i knew the 8-core was coming out, i just didn't know it would be this soon, i've only recently started getting into the 'underground' gossip of macs, and i don't know where i got the idea from but i thought the octo would be around Q1/2 of next year, and i would just have just done the upgrade myself if it warranted it. Anyway i was able to finish all my work this weekend before i shipped it today, so in a strange way i have a sort of holiday thanks to this news, though as a recent mac convert i can't believe i used to live like this, already missing her. :(
AriX
May 2, 09:40 AM
haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
firestarter
Mar 13, 08:37 PM
With cooperation it may not be as difficult as many think:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower
Superb. Replace one fuel reliance on the Middle East with another. Genius idea.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 06:48 PM
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:49 PM
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
Cromulent
Mar 26, 08:10 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives?
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people? Logically I imagine from a Catholic perspective it makes sense. My sister and brother in law both being Catholic gives me a bit of an insight into this topic and both are rather progressive.
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people? Logically I imagine from a Catholic perspective it makes sense. My sister and brother in law both being Catholic gives me a bit of an insight into this topic and both are rather progressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment