paulvee
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
Multimedia
Oct 28, 03:10 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Machead III
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
SirOmega
Sep 26, 12:49 AM
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
HyperX13
Apr 15, 10:43 AM
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
Exactly! I agree with you. I am a womanizer and I hate it when a church tells me I can't sleep with a different woman every night! I do plan on switching to polygamy and I hope the government gives me all the rights associated with my switch! Do you think Apple's womanizing employees will put out a video that it will be easier for me?
kdarling
Jun 1, 12:36 AM
Ok just to reference your statement about data using seperate channels and what not I guess you are not privy to the technology used in cell towers, congestion is caused as a cell tower can only handle so many requests, DATA or VOICE.....
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T.; Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T; because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.;
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
A common mistake is in thinking that an IP based backhaul means voice calls don't get dedicated resources. However, carriers use TDM and/or pseudo-wire circuits to make sure that voice calls get all the QoS they need.
Data has to share the remaining bandwidth and is what is subject to congestion.
So fyi Data requests can congest and cause problems with voice even on the Un Touched Super Squeeky Clean power known as Verizon's network.....
No. See above. Data loads alone should not cause problems with voice due to limited backhaul on either Verizon or AT&T.; Data especially cannot cause a voice problem on Verizon because it's transmitted on separate channels.
Data can (and does) cause dropped voice calls on AT&T; because GSM 3G shares the same channel for data and voice (thus allowing their simultaneous use). Data transmissions can affect voice calls, and vice versa. This is because more 3G voice or data users cause a cell's effective radius to shrink, and marginal users will often get dropped. So a new data user can drop voice users on AT&T.;
Another problem with GSM 3G is that if you're on a voice call and then use data simultaneously, the phone+network has to drop the voice connection and reconnect instantly as a combined data call, which can fail. You might not even know the phone is trying to do this in the background for push email or notifications data. All you know is that your voice call dropped. (Which is why some people stick to EDGE, which does not support simultaneous comms.)
I get dropped calls constantly. I'd say it's approaching 50% of the time. I am not even in a rural area at all. My phone will say 3-4 bars and then when I go to make a call, it drops down to 0-1 bars. I just turned in on, just now and it showed 4 bars, and then it dropped to 2 bars immediately. I think their software is trying to be optimistic or something. It's like magic!
GSM uses a form of CDMA called WCDMA for 3G.
(W)CDMA works by having every phone talking at once, just like picking out a voice in a crowd in a noisy room. The more phones talking to a cell, the louder everyone has to talk to be heard. The overall signal level doesn't matter, but only the usable ratio of your own signal levels to the noise floor.
If a phone displayed this ratio, it would fluctuate wildly as users come and go. So idle phones usually display the steady power level of a transmitted pilot channel from the tower instead. Basically, the closer you are, the higher the level, which a user can understand.
Once you connect, the phone can actually determine the connection quality because then it knows its communication error rate. That's why the bars will fluctuate after connection.
Your phone could show only one bar of pilot signal, but still get a great connection if you're the only one using that cell. Or you could have full bars of pilot signal, but a terrible connection if you're sharing the cell with too many others.
So bars are basically meaningless until connected, and even then only show the quality incoming to the phone, not how well you transmit to the tower.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
Povilas
Oct 8, 08:10 AM
I don't understand why some of you are having such a hard time believing this.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or it has 1000 other bad things.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or it has 1000 other bad things.
Lucky736
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
Is there a pun intended here? :D
Is there a pun intended here? :D
Eidorian
Oct 28, 02:07 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
br />
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
QCassidy352
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
skunk
Mar 27, 02:37 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.It's a homonym... :)
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:48 PM
Thanks for that ... I also find the "Federal Reserve" a little mysterious
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid;=10489
I'm not sure if our system is any clearer. We have the Bank of England and the Royal Mint, who are responsible for the same areas (the first is like the reserve, the second produces the money). These are also private companies!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid;=10489
I'm not sure if our system is any clearer. We have the Bank of England and the Royal Mint, who are responsible for the same areas (the first is like the reserve, the second produces the money). These are also private companies!
Eidorian
Oct 26, 09:15 PM
I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
marksman
Apr 20, 06:00 PM
I don't want to be a systems integrator. I like the Apple iOS ecosystem, and am glad when I want to use different products, it will be easy and seamless for me to migrate.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
One of the significant advantages Apple has is that it is a much more considered decision to leave the Apple ecosystyem then it is to leave the Android environment.
hanpa
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
JackSYi
Jul 11, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 09:38 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:56 PM
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
Povilas
Oct 8, 08:10 AM
I don't understand why some of you are having such a hard time believing this.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or i
t has 1000 other bad things.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or i
t has 1000 other bad things.
