AJsAWiz
Aug 31, 06:38 PM
It's not just "newbies" that have excessive dropped calls on AT&T (and the iPhone in particular). If you really think it is, you haven't been paying attention to this board for the last three years.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
MonkeyClaw
Sep 21, 08:49 AM
I think this thing is perfect, especially for a person like myself who does not watch a ton of TV. In the end it will be cheaper for me just running one of these on my TV and subscribing to a couple of shows as opposed to spending money on cable or satellite. The built in HDD is an interesting development, I'm curious to see what that might bring about. But as it stands, I'm sold, lol.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 04:14 PM
Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
oh, i am not arguing that, i am just saying that, given the circumstances, things so far has not been as bad as they could have.
of course things could still go south, but hopefully they won't
oh, i am not arguing that, i am just saying that, given the circumstances, things so far has not been as bad as they could have.
of course things could still go south, but hopefully they won't
gnasher729
May 2, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
You are joking right?
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
camarobh
Oct 7, 09:04 PM
No way. Apple will continue to release new hardware and updates as the iPhone continues through it's lifecycle. It is a recognized brand and like it or not, the control Apple exerts over the user experience maintains it's value.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Android is not recognizable to the general consumer, will be on some hardware manufacturer's phone, won't be consistent in its implementation, and will end up being just another phone OS.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
skunk
Apr 27, 04:39 PM
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:17 AM
Dear MacRumors,
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 04:47 AM
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
I should go to bed now. But before I do that, maybe a question will help explain part of my point about the difference between me and a property might gain or lose. If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it. You probably would say, "I'm Lee Kohler."
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:51 AM
Whatever your God has said in the past, I'm afraid I don't think he was even aware of the concept of 'LGBT'. He seemed to be a tad fixated on the 'G' part of that. Good to see his followers are trying to change that though. Forward thinking, modern, etc.
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
dizastor
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Apple gaining marketshare, picking up momentum...
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
gwangung
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
ct2k7
Oct 7, 11:12 AM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
identify and avoid any
gugy
Oct 25, 10:46 PM
I am so there with the cash ready a willing to fly out the window to Apple's account sooner than Apple can say:
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
Yeah, I might do the same.
The only thing that keeps me using my Quad G5 now is the fact Adobe CS2 is not universal and the memory price of the new Mac Pro's are soooo high.
But the octo-core for sure will be faster than the quad G5 for non universal Adobe CS2 apps.
Interesting decision to make.
I'll make my mind when this really happens.
"8-Core Mac Pro Available At the Apple Online Store For Ordering." :)
Yeah, I might do the same.
The only thing that keeps me using my Quad G5 now is the fact Adobe CS2 is not universal and the memory price of the new Mac Pro's are soooo high.
But the octo-core for sure will be faster than the quad G5 for non universal Adobe CS2 apps.
Interesting decision to make.
I'll make my mind when this really happens.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:28 AM
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
I'm sorry. I will correct it.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 03:50 PM
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
faroZ06
Apr 20, 06:15 PM
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:20 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment