DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 08:47 PM
Who really gives a damn?
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:45 AM
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
r0k
Apr 14, 02:57 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back. I am a fairly recent switcher. In fact I can honestly say I switch daily.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
tf23
Sep 12, 08:07 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:26 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
What community at large are you referring to? The world? Some Americans may not be taking the international makeup of MR into consideration.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 08:10 PM
I didn't expect some sort of Spanish inquisition :eek:
Bingo!
Bingo!
Apple OC
Mar 15, 12:09 AM
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
very informative link ... this is likely another 3 Mile situation and will get under control. The expanded evacuation seems to be added precaution and not an indication of Radiation sweeping the area.
I feel for the people that have been displaced and wish them well
very informative link ... this is likely another 3 Mile situation and will get under control. The expanded evacuation seems to be added precaution and not an indication of Radiation sweeping the area.
I feel for the people that have been displaced and wish them well
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
blahblah100
Apr 28, 02:54 PM
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 09:10 PM
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
lifeinhd
Apr 9, 09:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
arn
Oct 25, 10:32 PM
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
milo
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini!
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
And it will cost twice what the iTV costs.
People aren't willing to pay that much for a settop box. Game over. Product dead.
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else.
And that's exactly what I want. I don't want to pay for extra crap that I don't need.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 06:44 AM
...speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use.
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
kuwisdelu
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
I don't claim to know anything at all about professional video editing. I only listened to the live feed. And I can say that the FCP pros at NAB sounded like teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
So I'm going to assume it's good.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:33 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
Why do you think the concept of the afterlife began? Because of fear of death.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
You disagree? When I studied anthropology I learned that it is thought that is why religion began. Do you have other information?
kdarling
Feb 25, 04:25 PM
I politely disagree with the idea that lots of apps are necessary to make a smartphone popular. For one thing, I suspect there's not really more than a few thousand unique apps. Everything else is a variation and/or a lesser version of a good one.
Look at RIM. Only about 16,000 apps but they outsell many other phone types.
Look at the iPhone. Over 2,000 tip calculators alone! Nobody needs that many choices.
Windows Mobile has something like 30,000 apps. But out of a half dozen versions of each app, there will always be perhaps just two or three that are recommended between users most often: usually a free one, a paid inexpensive version, and a paid deluxe version.
As long as the major apps are available in a decent version, a phone will sell.
Again, the iPhone is an example. When it first came out, it was arguably just a feature phone with no apps. It had what other phones already had... Google maps, a browser, media player and some widgets. But it had nice ones which were easy to find and use... and that was enough to make it sell.
For that matter, the iPhone sold even without some of what I would consider major apps: VoIP and Slingplayer over 3G, MMS, Pandora in the background, decent home screen, and games.
I would say that the user experience and how it fits with that person's lifestyle, is far more important than apps.
Regards.
Look at RIM. Only about 16,000 apps but they outsell many other phone types.
Look at the iPhone. Over 2,000 tip calculators alone! Nobody needs that many choices.
Windows Mobile has something like 30,000 apps. But out of a half dozen versions of each app, there will always be perhaps just two or three that are recommended between users most often: usually a free one, a paid inexpensive version, and a paid deluxe version.
As long as the major apps are available in a decent version, a phone will sell.
Again, the iPhone is an example. When it first came out, it was arguably just a feature phone with no apps. It had what other phones already had... Google maps, a browser, media player and some widgets. But it had nice ones which were easy to find and use... and that was enough to make it sell.
For that matter, the iPhone sold even without some of what I would consider major apps: VoIP and Slingplayer over 3G, MMS, Pandora in the background, decent home screen, and games.
I would say that the user experience and how it fits with that person's lifestyle, is far more important than apps.
Regards.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 11:55 PM
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:50 PM
OK, lets look at this code again. I'll write some x86 assembly to do it. Not the best in the world, but we'll get an idea whats going on. Also I need to do this to help my memory. :)
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
OK:
segment .data
segment .bss
segment .text
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
OK:
segment .data
segment .bss
segment .text
javajedi
Oct 9, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Actually you are solidifying my point. How do we fight ignorance? It's very simple. You fight ignorance with facts; you fight ignorance with truth. As far as "But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac..." No. Myself, and the many people on this board who share my viewpoint are not hurting the Mac. We are being sincere, honost and truthful. If you think my post was a "PC biased hate post" you are deeply mistaken. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
Even more interesting was the advertisement from Apple when the Blue and White G3 came out, and how cool the case was when it opened so simply, they said the "Mac was more open-minded." What amazes me though is there are still just as many Windows users who are biggots in this world as Mac users who are, or even more so. Being though in the minority as we are, Mac users feel all the more need to defend themselves against this biggotted crowd. Apple is trying its hardest to level the playing field by its Switch campaign, and show that it is on the same playing field so that Windows users can't ignore us and demean us with lies, fabrications, and these myths. Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose? How do we fight ignorance? I work with PCs only because the job I enjoy the most is run by an organization that is biased against Macs, and I'm not in the position to decide how to move Macs into the organization. But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac. It makes us feel more in the minority and feel more the need to defend ourselves. Let's stop this attrocity. Show them what the Mac can do, and it is a viable solution. And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Actually you are solidifying my point. How do we fight ignorance? It's very simple. You fight ignorance with facts; you fight ignorance with truth. As far as "But it certainly doesn't help to have people who would bad mouth the Mac..." No. Myself, and the many people on this board who share my viewpoint are not hurting the Mac. We are being sincere, honost and truthful. If you think my post was a "PC biased hate post" you are deeply mistaken. I'm sorry if you can't understand that.
No comments:
Post a Comment