Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 06:11 AM
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that?
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?
Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.
Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.
7racer
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
This will be a nice solution if HD streaming is available.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
I record my trips/vacations on a HD Sony camcorder and make a iDVD of it.
Hopefully, I will be able to stream this with HiDef to my TV without the need for either Bluray or HDDVD standard to play itself out.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
Nuvi
Apr 13, 02:51 AM
I think they will still have the full studio boxed in store, I don't fancy downloading 6 DVDs worth of FCS from the app store, although it would make updates very easy.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
marksman
Apr 20, 08:19 PM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
Aduntu
Apr 24, 12:29 AM
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
MacSA
Jul 12, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:
Full of Win
Apr 20, 11:02 PM
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
They did not release it with the 1st generation model because the 3G chipset at the time took too much power. At least this was the reason given at the time.
They did not release it with the 1st generation model because the 3G chipset at the time took too much power. At least this was the reason given at the time.
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?
mozumder
Apr 13, 12:45 AM
This really does look like an Aperture for Video!
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
BC2009
Mar 18, 11:34 AM
Someone is failing... hard
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
Multimedia
Oct 7, 03:08 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.As I've explained in detail above AV, the 2.33GHz Clovertowns are the most likely candidate as they cost Apple the same $851 as the 3GHz Woodies. So Apple can give customers a clear choice of fast 4 or slower 8 for the same +$800 total $3,300.
If Apple offers the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, they will have to charge an additional $700 just to cover their additional cost - or very little more than. While the first 8 processors will cost a little over $400 each, that additional $700 will only buy you another 2.64GHz of power or one more processor at a $300 premium. But perhaps it will be worth it to some. I just hope we get the option. I'd rather not spend that last $700 on a little faster and buy RAM instead.
If Apple offers the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, they will have to charge an additional $700 just to cover their additional cost - or very little more than. While the first 8 processors will cost a little over $400 each, that additional $700 will only buy you another 2.64GHz of power or one more processor at a $300 premium. But perhaps it will be worth it to some. I just hope we get the option. I'd rather not spend that last $700 on a little faster and buy RAM instead.
playaj82
Jul 12, 03:20 PM
I hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
This high-def disk stuff is still too limited in its everyday usefulness. Of course there are always early adopters and people that have to have it right away, but Apple's entire pro line jeopardized by the price constraints of including a $1000 BR drive, or even having to support it, doubtful.
I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.
Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.
This high-def disk stuff is still too limited in its everyday usefulness. Of course there are always early adopters and people that have to have it right away, but Apple's entire pro line jeopardized by the price constraints of including a $1000 BR drive, or even having to support it, doubtful.
javajedi
Oct 12, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
squibran
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
I am looking forward to the specs of this device
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
japanese maple leaves tattoo.
japanese maple leaf tattoo
now back to Apple. Apple is only gonna make machines that are faster than Intel (i.e. G5, G6 etc...) if we DEMAND it. If we are content with 800MHz note books, while IBM makes 2.0GHz and Alienware makes 2.6GHz ones that smoke us, then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
200paul
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription. You just subsribe to the shows you want and al la carte other shows after that. Networks will probably even do the season premieres free to get you hooked or add sponsor the shows to make them free. TV on demand is obviously the next wave - even the cable companies know it and have on demand etc. I mean not to be racist but I'm happy to stop paying comcast for the 10+ stations that are in languages I don't even speak. I barely speak english - hahaha.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
In conclusion - its the same data - just different timing.
Erasmus
Oct 13, 04:09 AM
OK, does anyone know how well Matlab (7.1 I suppose) is threaded?
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
C N Reilly
Mar 18, 12:59 PM
I'm not worried about this. There's only two possibilities:
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
1) AT&T is just assuming anyone who uses more than X amount of data must be tethering, and shooting out threats. In such a case, all you have to do is call them and tell them you stream a radio station all day. They take you off the "evil tetherer" list; end of problem. (I've already seen two people post elsewhere that this has worked for them.)
2) There actually is something in the software/firmware that's enabling AT&T to tell who's tethering. In this case, the jailbreakers will just add some code to the next release to block or fool that bit of code. End of problem.
All signs thus far point to (1) being the truth, btw.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:13 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:44 AM
Exactly! Desktop shipments still outpace laptop shipments. Desktops and Laptops will continue to hold top market share, while inevitably tablets will cut into that margin and find a nice place and sit. Desktops have been around since the beginning.. and every challenger to it has never surpassed the market share. Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, smartphones... whatever.. people still need desktops and laptops for prolonged productivity.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 05:03 PM
You're holding it wrong.
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
Come on, you were just asking for that :)
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes: