toddicus
Nov 3, 08:08 AM
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
I think when they introduce cloverton it will be the top option. Probably two clovertons at 2.66 Ghz making the machine about 2,999 even 3,299. Making it the top machine, like the quad was with dual-core G5s. I don't think quad-core chips will sweet the line right away. So the base Mac Pro would stay the same, possibly even come down in a few months (even if only slightly) with probable price drops with quad-cores on the market.
this would make the gap between 24" imac and mac pro (dual 2 Ghz) not quite as big as if they were all 8-core mac pros
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:38 PM
Cutting a deal with a hacker, if we can get one who's up high enough ...
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ravich
May 3, 08:40 PM
All this over someone not even intelligent enough to title their "manual installation required" malware 'security update for Snow Leopard'
I like how the solution is basically "delete it"
I like how the solution is basically "delete it"
Funkymonk
May 2, 09:08 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
I'z scared :(
CalBoy
Mar 25, 02:50 PM
Got a source for that?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
guy#39;s lack and white art.
lack and white art,
Ben Allen Art Print sale
lack and white pictures.
Fine art black and white
lack and white art. and
lack and white. lack and
Op Art Black and White Spiral
Create A Black And White Art
lack and white flowers
lack and white art
Reset Start. lack and white
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
Eidorian
Sep 26, 10:44 AM
Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?You only have PCI Express slots in those models. I don't know what kind of controller chip it uses but it should just show up as a normal hard drive to your SATA onboard.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 12:22 AM
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
ten-oak-druid
Apr 12, 11:34 PM
Now Steven Spelberg can tweek the Star Wars movies.
steveh
May 2, 01:17 PM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
Only if you're unclever enough to have "Open 'safe' files after downloading" turned on.
I guess you really don't use Safari.
Only if you're unclever enough to have "Open 'safe' files after downloading" turned on.
I guess you really don't use Safari.
okboy
Apr 8, 11:21 PM
Not really impressed by the whole push into gaming-- gaming is what I use my iPT and iPad for the least. In fact, Game Center is in a folder marked "Undeletable Crap" on both devices, along with address book, FaceTime, calendar, and stocks (on the iPT). Really wish Apple allowed you to delete whatever you wanted-- but of course they know what I want better than I do.
Oh boo hoo, someone get this guy a tissue. How can it bother you that there is some game executive somewhere inside Apple HQ?
Oh boo hoo, someone get this guy a tissue. How can it bother you that there is some game executive somewhere inside Apple HQ?
bmullemeister
May 2, 06:23 PM
I just received an email with this site
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
lilo777
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 05:42 PM
Exactly. Android doesn't have the IBM that give them the PC market.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
I have used an HTC desire. Threw it away; got a Nexus S. Bloody awesome one. But I couldn't use it for much. But...
The application quality literally sucks on android. It's pathetic. Way too reboots and unstable phone. Android is LAGGY on the nexus S. The experience is poor.
I now have a trophy 7 and I love it. :)
Some OR most of the fans are abusive and are too much into google. Don't realize its an iOS ripoff and a fragmented experience. Nuff said.
Verizon was Android's IBM but now iPhone is now on vz.
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
I have used an HTC desire. Threw it away; got a Nexus S. Bloody awesome one. But I couldn't use it for much. But...
The application quality literally sucks on android. It's pathetic. Way too reboots and unstable phone. Android is LAGGY on the nexus S. The experience is poor.
I now have a trophy 7 and I love it. :)
Some OR most of the fans are abusive and are too much into google. Don't realize its an iOS ripoff and a fragmented experience. Nuff said.
toddicus
Nov 3, 06:08 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
dernhelm
Sep 20, 04:39 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
shawnce
Jul 12, 05:30 PM
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
--edit--
Also forgot to point out that Merom top out with 667 MT/s FSB... so several classes of tasks will be slower on a Merom then equally clocked Conroe.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
--edit--
Also forgot to point out that Merom top out with 667 MT/s FSB... so several classes of tasks will be slower on a Merom then equally clocked Conroe.
gkarris
Oct 7, 10:20 PM
1 iPhone Model (3 capacities) on AT&T vs many different Android Phones on all the other providers...
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
Seems possible to me...
(I can see a FREE Android Touchscreen phone with unlimited voice, data, and text for $70/month from someone out there to try to beat AT&T's offering - which isn't very hard to do...:eek:)
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
jobesucks
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
mdntcallr
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
While this certainly is a nice interface to a entertainment system.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment