Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:42 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.Bulletin. Many thousands of us knew it would be this soon. :)
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:19 PM
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
So do you figure they might just walk away and abandon this situation?
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ... certainly, not containing this situation is NOT an option.
syklee26
Sep 12, 03:51 PM
is this iTV thingee going to have wireless router function? then it replaces airport express. if not, then no.
ender land
Apr 23, 09:45 PM
Yes there are. In theistic belief.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
BrokenChairs
Apr 10, 07:34 AM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.
Yes 'games' are what Apple are after. Until they can produce a decent gaming library and convince companies to make Mac versions (at least Blizzard has all this time) I cannot take Apple seriously when it comes to games. What I call gaming is not a 3 minute exercise for fingers swiping across the screen. But if this is a step to increase non-casual games, good luck Apple.
nagromme
Jul 14, 02:28 PM
A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)
Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.
My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.
I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac :)
JackAxe
Apr 9, 03:15 AM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
Not for most games.
Beside, you can touch buttons. :)
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
TEG
Sep 20, 12:19 PM
ya, seems unlikely the hard drive is for DVR functionality [as someone pointed out, there are no video inputs ont the device]... but the hard drive could prove useful in other ways.
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:22 PM
8-Core Mac Pro? Can't wait to upgrade. :cool:
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
GeekLawyer
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
This is awesome of these employees to do. I love Apple, which must have given its blessing. We all know that Apple normally gags its employees.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
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
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:06 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:34 AM
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 09:00 AM
I think AppleInsider is slightly wrong on this.
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
legacyb4
Jul 12, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...
manhattanboy
May 5, 05:30 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
and obviously have either never made any calls or do not live in a major metropolitan city like NY.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:39 PM
Hey here's a question: what comes after Clovertown? The roadmap is kinda confusing after that from what I've seen. When can we reasonably expect Clovertown's successor, and what will it consist of?
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
I know there's a new architecture 2 years down the line, a die shrink, some multicore chips that won't be used in a Mac Pro... but can we expect any kind of real upgrade in past Clovertown, beyond mere speed bumps, or will this basically be it until '08?Tigerton is after Clovertown. It's 4 cores in a one dye package instead of 4 cores in two dyes in one package. But I'm not gonna wait for Tigerrton which I believe is scheduled for production in Spring 2007. Dual Clovertown is my next Mac for sure.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
gnasher729
Oct 31, 08:15 PM
Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 08:06 AM
The real facts are its only a report. The bottom line is Apple is stronger than ever and doing a great job.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment