macindork
Apr 22, 10:24 AM
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Mac Rules
Aug 4, 05:23 PM
New iMacs next Tuesday. I'll take one if it comes with a Conroe, Apple, thank you. But of course, if that's too hot, a Merom would do fine, too. Unless it will still use that dull 667MHz FSB, of course. At least put in an X1800 in it. Oh, and 1GB of RAM. And, while you're at it, throw in a 24" display too. And get rid of the lower bevel of the 'display design'. All that, and I'm buying straight away. If it will come pre-loaded with Leopard and will have a universal BlueRay/HD DVD-burner built-in, that is.
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
We can all hope! ;)
Cheers
:rolleyes:
But seriously, I'm soooo ready for a new iMac. This 800MHz G4 iMac is getting old. It works like a charm, still, and is plenty fast for most stuff, but it just doesn't feel right anymore. Also, I never had quite the relationship with it as with my old 233MHz G3 iMac. I WANT A NEW iMAC! AND I WANT IT NOW!
We can all hope! ;)
Cheers
Kwill
Apr 18, 03:56 PM
Don't bite the hand that screws you. :eek:
R0bert
Nov 23, 04:55 PM
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/6825/2003902622332125549_rs.jpg
pmz
May 4, 03:12 PM
Thanks for alerting me to this. I had no idea that Macrumors took up GBs of my bandwidth cap. :p
Gotcha. I don't have bandwidth caps, so I wouldn't know about that.
Gotcha. I don't have bandwidth caps, so I wouldn't know about that.
-aggie-
May 6, 05:43 PM
Why not have everyone leave this dead end?
bperboy
Aug 11, 10:05 AM
This is good news for me. I'm an advanced/expert user of winblows, and I've reinstalled XP for the last time! Too many things don't go as it should, and I shouldn't even have to reinstall the operating system every 6 blasted months! I'm planning on getting the high end mac laptop in about a year, but its good to know that progress is being made!
AaronEdwards
Apr 26, 04:09 PM
Yes I know that they operate under their parent group so what's your point? I salute you for having the ability to google that information.
I didn't need to google, that's something I know.
Which you obviously didn't since your argument was why Apple should worry about their market share when Ferrari and Porsche aren't. They should just continue to make exclusive products.
I bet they worried right up and until they got bought by a company that didn't worry about making cheaper products.
I didn't need to google, that's something I know.
Which you obviously didn't since your argument was why Apple should worry about their market share when Ferrari and Porsche aren't. They should just continue to make exclusive products.
I bet they worried right up and until they got bought by a company that didn't worry about making cheaper products.
mozmac
Jul 29, 09:23 PM
I can already see Phil sitting in the audience and then Job's cell phone rings..
Jobs: um..excuse me a sec..Seems I have a phone call..
Pulls out this cool looking cell phone,flips it open and says hello?
Phil: Say Steve,can we have a chat real fast ? then starts up iChat on his iPhone..
Jobs: starts up iChat on his cell phone..
The rest is history :D
That is pure, Apple style right there. Of course, I don't picture this phone being a flip phones. I believe (and hope) flip phones are on their way out. They were a fad, but aren't as practical as candy bar phones. They have more moving parts that can break and take longer to answer, especially if your hands are full or you're driving your car. (All you flip-phone people out there, before you start lashing out in defense, just accept those statements as truth, because you know they are.) Nothing beats hearing your phone, looking down, and pushing a button to start talking. As far as accidently calling people, I lock my phone with the push of a button and don't have any problems.
Jobs: um..excuse me a sec..Seems I have a phone call..
Pulls out this cool looking cell phone,flips it open and says hello?
Phil: Say Steve,can we have a chat real fast ? then starts up iChat on his iPhone..
Jobs: starts up iChat on his cell phone..
The rest is history :D
That is pure, Apple style right there. Of course, I don't picture this phone being a flip phones. I believe (and hope) flip phones are on their way out. They were a fad, but aren't as practical as candy bar phones. They have more moving parts that can break and take longer to answer, especially if your hands are full or you're driving your car. (All you flip-phone people out there, before you start lashing out in defense, just accept those statements as truth, because you know they are.) Nothing beats hearing your phone, looking down, and pushing a button to start talking. As far as accidently calling people, I lock my phone with the push of a button and don't have any problems.
ender land
Apr 11, 12:31 AM
The answer is most definitely 2.
PEMDAS + left to right.. written the way it is.. the answer should be 2.
The only way it would be 288 is if it was written:
48/[2(9+3)]
...
Part of me hopes you are writing an intentionally funny post where literally everything in your post is backwards :eek: if so, bravo, if not, um, well, everything you said is wrong.
PEMDAS + left to right.. written the way it is.. the answer should be 2.
The only way it would be 288 is if it was written:
48/[2(9+3)]
...
Part of me hopes you are writing an intentionally funny post where literally everything in your post is backwards :eek: if so, bravo, if not, um, well, everything you said is wrong.
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:18 PM
Could care less either way. Although I'd love Apple to give us more ways to customize our screens for iOS devices, Apple has always protected their UI... it's that consistency that makes Apple devices so clean and easy.
The expression is "couldn't care less" by the way.
The expression is "couldn't care less" by the way.
ladeer
Mar 30, 02:53 AM
I agree. Given the last Ford we purchased leaked and after 6 months of trying to fix it, the Ford dealer said "well, everything leaks" and said they'd give a good deal on it to trade it in if we wanted. And the last GM we had stalled every morning when you were pulling out on to the road and the dealer said that it was "just the way the car was made," and could never fix it I wouldn't buy an American made car unless they started getting good reports both for quality upfront (they just sound cheap compared to a Honda, Mercedes, Lexus, Porsche, or Toyota) and for quality over 5-6+ years of ownership. And the previous American made cars we had were of similar low quality.
So for the last 11 years, I've been buying non-American. It is too bad, but the quality is not there. I even looked at one with a friend in November and it was the same deal.
An iPhone made in the US would be double the price due to high taxes and regulation. Quality, who knows, but the cost would be prohibitive compared to everyone else. It would be the fastest way for Apple to kill itself. If Apple *could* do it, they would, but it is impossible.
It is competition - if you can't compete on quality or price, you are out of luck. Unless you can get a handout.
quality has nothing to do w/ the location of manufacturing. toyota and bmw both make many of their cars in US, but they have high quality because they make them that way.
it's not about where it's made, or which country the company comes from. Apple is an American company but understands design and quality, just like many other american companies that care about quality such as boeing.
So for the last 11 years, I've been buying non-American. It is too bad, but the quality is not there. I even looked at one with a friend in November and it was the same deal.
An iPhone made in the US would be double the price due to high taxes and regulation. Quality, who knows, but the cost would be prohibitive compared to everyone else. It would be the fastest way for Apple to kill itself. If Apple *could* do it, they would, but it is impossible.
It is competition - if you can't compete on quality or price, you are out of luck. Unless you can get a handout.
quality has nothing to do w/ the location of manufacturing. toyota and bmw both make many of their cars in US, but they have high quality because they make them that way.
it's not about where it's made, or which country the company comes from. Apple is an American company but understands design and quality, just like many other american companies that care about quality such as boeing.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 25, 09:57 AM
In the meantime, government agencies in a number of countries have launched investigations into the situation, seeking explanations from Apple and details on how users can protect their privacy.
Simple:
- Just as you would do with your wallet and personal record files, don't loose your iPhone or lend it to someone you don't trust.
- Don't hack your iPhone and then install software that could be unsafe.
- Not necessary, but if you are too paranoid disable Location Services.
Protecting your Privacy involves more than just taking care of your iPhone. Someone could call you saying you won a trip to Hawaii, get your personal information, and then you are doomed.
Or when you purchase something, swipe your Credit Card into their device and retrieve most of the private information they need to steal your identity.
So, don't come and make a big issue about the iphone tracking personal info and people's privacy invaded, blah-blah, without a certain proof.
All this hype is nothing more than a publicity stunt .
Simple:
- Just as you would do with your wallet and personal record files, don't loose your iPhone or lend it to someone you don't trust.
- Don't hack your iPhone and then install software that could be unsafe.
- Not necessary, but if you are too paranoid disable Location Services.
Protecting your Privacy involves more than just taking care of your iPhone. Someone could call you saying you won a trip to Hawaii, get your personal information, and then you are doomed.
Or when you purchase something, swipe your Credit Card into their device and retrieve most of the private information they need to steal your identity.
So, don't come and make a big issue about the iphone tracking personal info and people's privacy invaded, blah-blah, without a certain proof.
All this hype is nothing more than a publicity stunt .
acurafan
May 7, 01:23 PM
that would be awesome, free is good! i'd sign up and use it as honeypot for all useless mail and spam (same as my gmail and yahoo) :D
rand()
Aug 2, 12:14 PM
You got it wrong. If you can't have cameras.. you CAN'T HAVE CAMERAS even if they're NOT being used.
I don't think that's what the OP meant... it could be though. I think what he meant was don't use the new Apple displays, get a different brand without one built in. And at least with a desktop, you have that option.
My father-in-law can't buy one of the new Intel MacBook/MBP's simply because of the camera. He does government work occasionally, and they'll stop him at the door with anything that can behave as a camera, camphones & camlaptops included.
Maybe if they had some kind of lock-able latch that he could cover the camera and give the key to the door man... I've seen covers, but not lockable ones. That way, the agency/company can be secure knowing that the cameras have been rendered non-functional. I guess he could also simply shatter the lens, although that seems a bit extreme :-).
-rand()
I don't think that's what the OP meant... it could be though. I think what he meant was don't use the new Apple displays, get a different brand without one built in. And at least with a desktop, you have that option.
My father-in-law can't buy one of the new Intel MacBook/MBP's simply because of the camera. He does government work occasionally, and they'll stop him at the door with anything that can behave as a camera, camphones & camlaptops included.
Maybe if they had some kind of lock-able latch that he could cover the camera and give the key to the door man... I've seen covers, but not lockable ones. That way, the agency/company can be secure knowing that the cameras have been rendered non-functional. I guess he could also simply shatter the lens, although that seems a bit extreme :-).
-rand()
aldejesus
Mar 30, 11:05 PM
Good catch, I thought I saw 15"
I was sharing this because I found it interesting, its supposed to be just 384MB shared. Just thinking if Lion enables more memory shared??:rolleyes:
I was sharing this because I found it interesting, its supposed to be just 384MB shared. Just thinking if Lion enables more memory shared??:rolleyes:
Eldiablojoe
May 3, 09:34 PM
if a villain needs to go through a room where he placed a trap, can he temporarily disable it?
Traps and monsters don't harm the villain.
You guys responded to Ravenvii saying that Traps and monsters don't harm the villain, but in the OP, in the Q&A's, you wrote:
- can the villain/monster fall into the traps?
Villain (a stupid one): yes, Monsters: No (since they don't move).
Was that just being funny, or is it a conflicting rule?
Thanks!
Traps and monsters don't harm the villain.
You guys responded to Ravenvii saying that Traps and monsters don't harm the villain, but in the OP, in the Q&A's, you wrote:
- can the villain/monster fall into the traps?
Villain (a stupid one): yes, Monsters: No (since they don't move).
Was that just being funny, or is it a conflicting rule?
Thanks!
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
MacBuck
May 8, 08:03 AM
I'm one of the people that find the price tag to be a bit hefty. But, I'd rather not use it than have a free watered-down service.
iamrawr
May 7, 11:16 PM
Do it! Free is good :cool:
marksman
Apr 7, 03:25 PM
Yes, the war just started and things are heating up. I would think the next few years will result in a tablet OS distribution that looks like this:
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
I could see iAd playing a role in this decision. Apple
pays for it through ads. Makes sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Steve Jobs said iAd was a way to have Free or low cost apps on the app store and still get the developer a little compensation.
How does that translate into a closed cloud service like Mobileme? Apple isn't trying to be Cupertino Google here.
I could see iAd playing a role in this decision. Apple
pays for it through ads. Makes sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Steve Jobs said iAd was a way to have Free or low cost apps on the app store and still get the developer a little compensation.
How does that translate into a closed cloud service like Mobileme? Apple isn't trying to be Cupertino Google here.
vincenz
Apr 14, 11:32 AM
Holy crap I didn't know they had a website for that. :eek:
The money printers have to eat too ;)
The money printers have to eat too ;)
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 01:52 PM
i can't wait!! and it's gonna be so hard buying a Macbook tomorrow and not being able to open it til the 7th!
Wish I could get a MBP for <$1500 then I would be in the same situation.
Wish I could get a MBP for <$1500 then I would be in the same situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment