neiltc13
Apr 9, 07:03 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
chrismacguy
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
Theres also a lovely massive gaping hole in the Catholic "Invisible God who must exist because 1st Century Nomads who couldn't work out keeping toilet and food separate was a smart idea said he did" view of things:
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
Assume God Exists and isn't okay with homosexuality:
God thus made Humankind. => He invented the way we think => He invented the concept of sexuality (So we could reproduce) => He invented homosexuality as an option within sexuality (Since he invented the concept, he had infinite control over it, thus he could develop it however he wants, including only having men like women etc, as seen in many animal species, which he created under this model, so he must've known he possessed the power to do so) => He must be okay with it, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with homosexuality in the first place. ergo your god either likes homosexuality or doesn't exist. Quite evidently I believe the latter.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:44 PM
... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
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.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
tyr2
Sep 20, 08:45 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
Cappy
Oct 9, 12:09 PM
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
mdntcallr
Sep 25, 11:58 PM
well sounds like i need to chill out and not but the mac pro i was thinking of. perhaps i will wait till they are refreshed with this.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
Hopefully the new mac pro's will also have a blu-ray drive option with HDMI HDTV option.
also, with new HDTV TV/Monitor with Speakers integrated Displays.
DrGruv1
Oct 26, 08:49 AM
but it's still great to see :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
should be fun to process on this octomac - very fun to see 8 proc. in logic :)
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
abdominal muscles,
Training the abdominal muscles
I want arm and stomach muscles
tone stomach muscles - but
workout on stomach muscles
your abdominal muscles and
abdominal muscles because
Core Muscle Region
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:53 PM
Ditto stem cells. :)
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:35 PM
MacCoaster:
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Don't panic
Mar 14, 05:10 PM
I believe that massive solar energy farms in the Sahara and other deserts, servicing whole landmasses, like the EU proposal, is the way to go. If the price goes up to pay for the infrastructure, the rationing effect can only be a good thing. Safety, certainly, is hardly an issue.
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distance
liavman
Apr 15, 10:02 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Not the kind of bullying that leads to suicide.
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 07:08 PM
There is a few things
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
I miss the start button. The dock is handy but I prefer the start button and quick access tool bar.
Put your Applications folder and user folder in the dock, then right click and change it to a list view. You now have full access to everything on your HD via the user folder in the dock, and the applications folder as well.
remove programs
Remove or uninstall? To remove from the dock, simply click and hold, then drag off, it goes away. To uninstall, drag application from the applications folder to the trash, then empty trash. Or if the specific application came with an uninstaller, you can use that too.
My network places
Network as in available WiFi networks or connected servers? Connected servers will show up in any Finder folder you open up in the sidebar. As far as Wifi, that's in the WiFi symbol on the top menu bar.
scratching my head on how to easily open a new tab on safari when only a single safari window is open
File > New Tab, OR Command + T, OR right click on the top of the safari window, click "customize toolbar" and add the "New tab" button to your existing buttons.
I seem to close a lot of safari windows instead of hitting the back button.
As mentioned above, when you customize your toolbar in Safari, you can always add some other buttons in front of the back/forward buttons to keep from closing it out inadvertently.
wnurse
Mar 19, 10:41 PM
That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
rdowns
Mar 24, 07:17 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
AJsAWiz
Sep 2, 12:27 AM
Did a funny bit on the new iPod Touch announcement. He said it was like an iPhone except it doesn't make calls . . . then he said, oh that IS an iPhone!
Sad but true :o
Come on, Apple . . . open this thing up to other cell phone providers. Perhaps those (like me) getting terrible reception and dropped calls might get better phone service. AND maybe we'll see a drop in rates for everyone. Competition is good for the market ;)
Sad but true :o
Come on, Apple . . . open this thing up to other cell phone providers. Perhaps those (like me) getting terrible reception and dropped calls might get better phone service. AND maybe we'll see a drop in rates for everyone. Competition is good for the market ;)
sinsin07
Apr 9, 12:19 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
dudemac
Mar 20, 10:23 AM
from what i see on it's website tis a *nix programme... ie not windows.. ;)
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
it runs on windows too you just to have the GTK installed also. Its on the website. see my post to page 3 first post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=115997&page=3&pp=25)
But as of yesterday morning I could no longer purchase songs this way, I can log in and browse, but it will not finalize the sale.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:37 AM
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
milo
Jul 13, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.
So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.
That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.
Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)
They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.
AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....
To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.
No comments:
Post a Comment