Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 07:24 AM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
The discussion of who has the better device is useless.
Whatever works for you is fine. Whatever works for me is fine.
The day something really good comes out on either platform the media will report it , we will see advertising and we can read reviews and check things out and decide what to buy next.
Do I feel ghz or chip envy about standby time, camera resolution mp, or app availability?
Couldn't care less, if my device does what I want it to do.
So, Android guys, you have the best device if you decide so.
No need to look at what Apple does. It will come to your device too, just a little later when the copies are ready.
The discussion of who has the better device is useless.
Whatever works for you is fine. Whatever works for me is fine.
The day something really good comes out on either platform the media will report it , we will see advertising and we can read reviews and check things out and decide what to buy next.
Do I feel ghz or chip envy about standby time, camera resolution mp, or app availability?
Couldn't care less, if my device does what I want it to do.
So, Android guys, you have the best device if you decide so.
No need to look at what Apple does. It will come to your device too, just a little later when the copies are ready.
Stella
Aug 29, 10:58 PM
You sound like George Bush...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
OllyW
Apr 30, 03:03 AM
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
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.
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?
Lau
Aug 29, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 12:42 PM
I'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 12:00 AM
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
I make the statement because that is how I see things ... as I said there is not even remote evidence that there are Gods or that there ever were.
Science has given me very logical and believable answers as to how life formed on Earth.
I am not one that is still searching for answers. ... some so called Atheists are hoping for the proof that there is or is not a God. ... Science has already given me all the proof I need.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
I make the statement because that is how I see things ... as I said there is not even remote evidence that there are Gods or that there ever were.
Science has given me very logical and believable answers as to how life formed on Earth.
I am not one that is still searching for answers. ... some so called Atheists are hoping for the proof that there is or is not a God. ... Science has already given me all the proof I need.
callme
Apr 28, 07:35 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
Stuck record! Same old comment, still not true.
They can sell as many as they can make, production is the limiting factor at the moment NOT lack of demand.
Stuck record! Same old comment, still not true.
They can sell as many as they can make, production is the limiting factor at the moment NOT lack of demand.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
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.
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.
MacRumors
Oct 25, 10:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
American Eagle with Flag
American+flag+wallpaper+hd
American Flag background
The American flag
Beautiful American Flag
(American Flag Background)
American+flag+ackground+
Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176) that Apple is indeed planning on introducing a 8-Core Mac Pro using the Quad-Core Xeon (Clovertown) processors from Intel.
The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown.
As it stands, the release of the eight-core Mac Pro hinges on both Intel and Apple. But following Intel's mid-Nov. quad-core Xeon launch, the ball should be completely on Apple's side of the court. It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season.
Details of the Clovertown processors were revealed in September (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060926002955.shtml), showing two versions of the chip that support the same 1333MHz bus as the Mac Pro. These processors (X5355 and E5345) run at 2.66 and 2.33GHz respectively.
iindigo
May 2, 10:20 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:34 AM
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
jessicasimpson1
Jun 18, 01:43 AM
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call. If I started having dropped calls I would change carriers.
cheap wholesale T-shirts (http://www.baiyokefactory.com)
cheap wholesale T-shirts (http://www.baiyokefactory.com)
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
toddybody
Apr 21, 08:22 AM
Fandroids: the most annoying fanboys on the planet.
"Which is why I frequent an Apple users community discussion forum."
:rolleyes:
Your profile name/avatar/signature shows how unbias you are...shame on these crazy Android users who can't see the merit of a different OS :rolleyes:
"Which is why I frequent an Apple users community discussion forum."
:rolleyes:
Your profile name/avatar/signature shows how unbias you are...shame on these crazy Android users who can't see the merit of a different OS :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
Doc750
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
you people who think being charged for tethering is justified, exemplify what is wrong with this country. You would bend over and take anything up the rear end, just b/c it was written in a contract.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
The reason Apple "performs poorly" on recycling compared to Dell is that Apple computers, on average, remain in use approximately twice as long as Dell computers. Instead of being recycled, they are still being used. Apple does, after all, have a free recycling program. And there is no way that making computers that are replaced more frequently is more environmentally friendly.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
It also seems that most of Greenpeace's complaints focus around Apple's refusal to provide Greenpeace with information on what materials are used in manufacturing its products.
Greenpeace does not have an exactly spotless record when it comes to ethics. Makes you wonder if it gets its computers from Dell at a discount.
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
Honestly, I think what will be a major deciding factor on how well the iphone/android does against dedicated handhelds is how many developers decide to also put their games on the iphone/android as well as how many very good and unique to the handheld game the handhelds get (basically can these people deciding if they are also going to buy a handheld on top of their smartphone still play the games they want on their smartphone even if it isn't as good as an experience on the hand held? I think many people might decide it's not worth buying that extra handheld long as they can get the games they want to play on the device they already have. And that there aren't games that entice them to get the handheld that they can't get on their smartphone).
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
diamond.g
Apr 9, 06:19 PM
The point is the line between these two camps is being blurred. It's a feature of the post-PC era. Look at what the App Store games section is evolving into - daily, monthly, yearly. It's pretty astounding. Soon, "hardcore gaming" will characterize other devices in addition to consoles. THIS is the real revolution that's going on when it comes to the gaming market. Apple is redefining it.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
The only thing I can see Apple redefining is our willingness to buy a game that we cannot resell. I am not seeing anything (game play wise) that couldn't be done on other platforms.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:09 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
