dempson
Mar 26, 03:23 PM
NB: For those English native speakers... which is the best subject when addressing a company, for instance, Apple/Microsoft...? I used "it" here, but sometimes I also use "they"... and I don't know which one is correct!
Both are acceptable. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the plural, i.e. "they". In the US, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the singular, i.e. "it". To me (in New Zealand), "they" seems more natural because most companies involve multiple people.
Both are acceptable. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the plural, i.e. "they". In the US, the convention seems to be to refer to a company in the singular, i.e. "it". To me (in New Zealand), "they" seems more natural because most companies involve multiple people.
iGary
Aug 11, 11:19 AM
I've been looking at the Treo, but they're not easy to come by for Vodafone contract, if at all.
And they suck - I had a 600, which fell into the water and was replaced by insurance with a 650, which is only marginally better.
I don't believe the rumor - Steve wouldn't blab, he just wouldn't.
We only have a month to wait, though. :)
And they suck - I had a 600, which fell into the water and was replaced by insurance with a 650, which is only marginally better.
I don't believe the rumor - Steve wouldn't blab, he just wouldn't.
We only have a month to wait, though. :)
zelet
Aug 25, 04:10 PM
Im sure ill get alot of "pro apple kool-aid drinker" attacks from this but this dosent make me any less of an Apple enthusiest iMikeT
Amen to that! I'm a huge fan of Apple but I wont let them polish a turd and tell me its a diamond.
Amen to that! I'm a huge fan of Apple but I wont let them polish a turd and tell me its a diamond.
Yebubbleman
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
@yebubbleman
You keep talking about the MBA being "crippled" - how so? What can't it do other than play optical media? Why can't you do "real work" on it?
As for the graphics, I'm under no illusion that it can play games like a mbp let alone gaming PC. And I don't need that. But the current MBA can play some modern games (SC II for example) at decent settings and frames. I wouldnt want to lose the ability to do casual gaming by going to the intel integrated.
A 13" MacBook Pro has a hard drive that can be easily replaced and upgraded (even with an SSD if you so fancy), RAM that can be easily replaced and upgraded, a standard-voltage (read: more powerful) CPU, and yes (love it or hate it) an optical drive, along with a FireWire 800 port, an Ethernet Port, an IR sensor (which granted, isn't the most useful feature out there) and battery life to spare even given the faster speed. And yes, even with a Sandy Bridge MacBook Air, the benefits that a Sandy Bridge 13" MacBook Pro have over it, especially for the price, make it a much better machine. You are grossly limited with a MacBook Air by comparison.
I don't mean to say that with a 27" iMac at home, one couldn't be happily mobile with a 13" MacBook Air if they so desired, I just don't think it has enough going for it to make it worthy of being stand-alone to anyone who isn't either (a) bat-**** crazy about about the MacBook Air or (b) very simple in their computing needs.
I didn't go through all the pages of replies, but in case some one hasn't corrected them yet, the bus speed of the 13" is 1066mhz.
Already covered, but kudos regardless.
@yebubbleman
You keep talking about the MBA being "crippled" - how so? What can't it do other than play optical media? Why can't you do "real work" on it?
As for the graphics, I'm under no illusion that it can play games like a mbp let alone gaming PC. And I don't need that. But the current MBA can play some modern games (SC II for example) at decent settings and frames. I wouldnt want to lose the ability to do casual gaming by going to the intel integrated.
A 13" MacBook Pro has a hard drive that can be easily replaced and upgraded (even with an SSD if you so fancy), RAM that can be easily replaced and upgraded, a standard-voltage (read: more powerful) CPU, and yes (love it or hate it) an optical drive, along with a FireWire 800 port, an Ethernet Port, an IR sensor (which granted, isn't the most useful feature out there) and battery life to spare even given the faster speed. And yes, even with a Sandy Bridge MacBook Air, the benefits that a Sandy Bridge 13" MacBook Pro have over it, especially for the price, make it a much better machine. You are grossly limited with a MacBook Air by comparison.
I don't mean to say that with a 27" iMac at home, one couldn't be happily mobile with a 13" MacBook Air if they so desired, I just don't think it has enough going for it to make it worthy of being stand-alone to anyone who isn't either (a) bat-**** crazy about about the MacBook Air or (b) very simple in their computing needs.
I didn't go through all the pages of replies, but in case some one hasn't corrected them yet, the bus speed of the 13" is 1066mhz.
Already covered, but kudos regardless.
Macaroony
Mar 3, 04:08 AM
I'm sorry, Bill, but your logic has one big flaw.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
bretm
Apr 11, 07:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Go get yourself an Atrix or HTC and see if you like it better. You won't. We have an Atrix in our house. And it's dual processor still is slower than the iPhone 4. Heck, just interface snappiness and smoothness is still a lesser experience to the original iPhone.
Go get yourself an Atrix or HTC and see if you like it better. You won't. We have an Atrix in our house. And it's dual processor still is slower than the iPhone 4. Heck, just interface snappiness and smoothness is still a lesser experience to the original iPhone.
MacRumorUser
Nov 27, 04:13 PM
Gran Turismo: The REAL driving simulator ....as long as you've grinded long enough. :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
Exactly. It's always been a contradictory game for me. The claim of real against the synthetic just has never jelled for me.
I'd rather a game like burnout, heck even Mario Kart not because it's easier or arcade, but because it doesn't have any pretentious about being what it is.
I'd love to love GT series, just find it impossible to do and I've given ALL of them a try including the even more pretentious PROLOGUE versions.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:30 PM
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
jholzner
Jul 27, 11:28 AM
I read the link, and it give no mention of the speeds of the notebook chips. It only gives a range for the desktop chips. Maybe you didn't read it.
When did Apple have pentium-era chips in their machines?
They didn't. Where is this Mhz myth you are talking about? They are downplaying the use of Mhz was the point I was making.
When did Apple have pentium-era chips in their machines?
They didn't. Where is this Mhz myth you are talking about? They are downplaying the use of Mhz was the point I was making.
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
GregA
Mar 26, 08:06 PM
does anyone else thing launchpad is the worst idea yet?
I did, until I saw why they were doing it.
On the iPad or Mac, whatever you're doing you'll be able to pinch your 5 fingers together (or press the home button on iPad or iPhone) and it'll bring up your apps so you can launch something else. It's just a consistency thing.
He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing.
Well, cues in the interface, and the same underlying OS. That's all it is for now. Mac OSX has a lot of extra options.
(Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
iOS has to grow up, especially with respect to File Management. I think iOS 5 will go a long way in this area.
Once we get to iOS 6 I think we may start seeing iOS as the default Mac OS, with an optional OSX install (like X11 is) that extends it to do everything we expect from OSX (access to the file systems etc., perhaps even required for installation of non-app store programs). It may even be something where someone with "administrator" privileges gets the OSX add ons, while standard users do not.
I did, until I saw why they were doing it.
On the iPad or Mac, whatever you're doing you'll be able to pinch your 5 fingers together (or press the home button on iPad or iPhone) and it'll bring up your apps so you can launch something else. It's just a consistency thing.
He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing.
Well, cues in the interface, and the same underlying OS. That's all it is for now. Mac OSX has a lot of extra options.
(Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
iOS has to grow up, especially with respect to File Management. I think iOS 5 will go a long way in this area.
Once we get to iOS 6 I think we may start seeing iOS as the default Mac OS, with an optional OSX install (like X11 is) that extends it to do everything we expect from OSX (access to the file systems etc., perhaps even required for installation of non-app store programs). It may even be something where someone with "administrator" privileges gets the OSX add ons, while standard users do not.
Willis
Jul 27, 02:19 PM
They didn't. Where is this Mhz myth you are talking about? They are downplaying the use of Mhz was the point I was making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38
Anyone wanting to know about the Mhz myth shall find it there.
These new chips are to prove that the Mhz myth doesnt exist. Just by changing their arch. they can provide more performance with the same mhz, instead of increasing it (such as the Pentiums)
Imagine. If the Intel's were'nt annouced in January... we'd only have them for a month or two now instead of 7. Crazy.
Just goes to show the MBP's truely are designed for Merom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38
Anyone wanting to know about the Mhz myth shall find it there.
These new chips are to prove that the Mhz myth doesnt exist. Just by changing their arch. they can provide more performance with the same mhz, instead of increasing it (such as the Pentiums)
Imagine. If the Intel's were'nt annouced in January... we'd only have them for a month or two now instead of 7. Crazy.
Just goes to show the MBP's truely are designed for Merom
840quadra
Aug 16, 10:55 PM
I still love my PowerPC Mac. I'm gonna shed a tear some day when I retire it. This thing is rock solid and fast (enough) :cool:
I agree, Especially considering the fact that 4 months before I bought it, I was running on a Pentium 450 as a primary computer.
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
I agree, Especially considering the fact that 4 months before I bought it, I was running on a Pentium 450 as a primary computer.
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
alfonsog
Apr 27, 09:11 AM
If anyone wants complete privacy they shouldn't use a cell phone anyway. Or internet, or credit cards, or electricity, or work, or pay taxes. I would think Droid phones would be worse since their creator was Google which is all about tracking you to sell ads. No difference than junk mail, they know your home address and what stores are in your proximity.
Also to Apple logging might mean using the data to track you, which they aren't.
Also to Apple logging might mean using the data to track you, which they aren't.
KEL9000
Jul 14, 04:14 PM
No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD. :cool:
I wasn't being a smartass.
The list of steering members excludes apple but includes sony. I don't think that that is relevant. The standard member list has everybody associated with DVDs in it.
http://www.dvdforum.org/about-steering.htm
I suspect they will choose one format over the other because all the systems (except potetially the MacPro) apple makes will only have one optical drive. Forcing them to choose a standard for media delivery.
I wasn't being a smartass.
The list of steering members excludes apple but includes sony. I don't think that that is relevant. The standard member list has everybody associated with DVDs in it.
http://www.dvdforum.org/about-steering.htm
I suspect they will choose one format over the other because all the systems (except potetially the MacPro) apple makes will only have one optical drive. Forcing them to choose a standard for media delivery.
redshift1
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
No need to take shots at the Xoom - it's actually nice little device.
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
Doesn't have the best polish software-wise... but to act like it is THAT far off from the iPad2 is lunacy.
Indeed it is!!!!!
bwanac
Aug 8, 01:05 AM
Nothing impressive really... top secrets should be good.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly. And I really want to know how much disk space it will be taking backing everything up constantly. I would most likely turn it off.
Time Machine is ok. It looks awful for an Apple product, what is up with that background? Ugly. And I really want to know how much disk space it will be taking backing everything up constantly. I would most likely turn it off.
.jpg "cute love quotes from songs.")
hobi316
Jun 14, 11:29 AM
Nope, he looked it up on his computer and
told me preorders start Thursday for Radio Shack.
However, I would love to be proved wrong on that.
I mean, RadioShack isn't at the forefront of techie retail or anything, but that guy can't be that idiotic, can he? The rest of the country is accepting pre-orders for this thing tomorrow, including the Radioshack store I've been in contact with. He's got to be mistaken, man. I would call back and question him on that.
told me preorders start Thursday for Radio Shack.
However, I would love to be proved wrong on that.
I mean, RadioShack isn't at the forefront of techie retail or anything, but that guy can't be that idiotic, can he? The rest of the country is accepting pre-orders for this thing tomorrow, including the Radioshack store I've been in contact with. He's got to be mistaken, man. I would call back and question him on that.
kas23
Apr 10, 07:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...if they were dealing with the Apple of 5 years ago. But, no, we now see today's Apple in action. The same Apple that stole that hot chick's iAd app idea, the same that "asked" Toyota to remove the Scion ad from Cydia, the same that sent out their own ninja's to search some dude's house for the iPhone 4 prototype, etc.
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened...if they were dealing with the Apple of 5 years ago. But, no, we now see today's Apple in action. The same Apple that stole that hot chick's iAd app idea, the same that "asked" Toyota to remove the Scion ad from Cydia, the same that sent out their own ninja's to search some dude's house for the iPhone 4 prototype, etc.
Rt&Dzine;
Feb 28, 04:49 PM
Excellent post.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Huntn
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
Multimedia
Aug 19, 12:33 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203% @ about 100fps analysis (1st Pass of 2) speed. If I add a Toast encode while that is happening, Handbrake takes a huge hit down to below 150% @ 70-80 fps analysis while Toast can only use about 130% instead of more alone. So the Tiger OS X seems to have difficulty managing more than one multicore application's core usage allocation up to its maximum capability - IE Tiger is not so MultiCore Enabeled as it could be IE Leopard probably will be much moreso - let's hope that is one of its TOP SECRETS.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
Sydde
Mar 24, 01:28 PM
And the vast majority of WASPs are racists? Got it.
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
twoodcc
Aug 18, 08:32 PM
NO WAY!! that would be awesome
yeah...please share a video if you can
yeah...please share a video if you can
