ECUpirate44
Apr 14, 01:16 PM
Page 2?
netdog
Oct 17, 04:03 PM
Missed this thread. I'll be there.
Dagless
Dec 17, 02:44 PM
I also find it ironic that people are being told to buy a song which famously has the lyric;
****** you i wont do what you tell me
Joe Public is a clever.
****** you i wont do what you tell me
Joe Public is a clever.
DIGIJUNKIE
Oct 9, 04:10 PM
Studio heads are no dummies, they want to make money too and they know that the future of media is through the computers. This is just all PR crap to keep the Wall-mart and Target happy for now.
Wall-mart and Target will either live with it, or loose huge profits they can still make if they do what they say they'll do and dump all dvd's.
Don't play chicken with a tank if you are driving a motorcycle, not a very good outcome.
Wall-mart and Target will either live with it, or loose huge profits they can still make if they do what they say they'll do and dump all dvd's.
Don't play chicken with a tank if you are driving a motorcycle, not a very good outcome.
more...
jbourassa
Nov 2, 09:43 AM
No don't think so it works on my laptop (It was The Bled - Pass the flask)
MorphingDragon
Apr 15, 08:36 AM
still cheaper than a lot of the competition. before we went to sql 2005 we looked at Oracle. by the time you bought the add on packs it was almost $1 million for our installation. SQL was 1/4 that.
AD might be a bit expensive but the AD forests people created in Windows 2000 can be upgraded every version with minimal issues and it works out of the box. with other products you first have to spend months creating your schema, pray it doesn't break when used with other products and upgrading can be a big PITA. AD is the apple of corporate IT. you don't need a team of geeks toiling away for months to code a ldap schema, it just works out of the box
1. You aren't looking very hard if your choices became MSSQL vs OracleDB.
2. If you spend months creating your LDAP or even AD schema/map, you need to go back to your clients/customer/contractee/er and do some proper planning.
3. AD was quickly dumped by the likes of Wall Street and Cox Industries. AD is a solution, not the Apple of Corporate IT.
AD might be a bit expensive but the AD forests people created in Windows 2000 can be upgraded every version with minimal issues and it works out of the box. with other products you first have to spend months creating your schema, pray it doesn't break when used with other products and upgrading can be a big PITA. AD is the apple of corporate IT. you don't need a team of geeks toiling away for months to code a ldap schema, it just works out of the box
1. You aren't looking very hard if your choices became MSSQL vs OracleDB.
2. If you spend months creating your LDAP or even AD schema/map, you need to go back to your clients/customer/contractee/er and do some proper planning.
3. AD was quickly dumped by the likes of Wall Street and Cox Industries. AD is a solution, not the Apple of Corporate IT.
more...
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
javaGuru
Aug 19, 10:09 AM
This new location feature is screaming "Im not at home, please break into my house!"
I agree; It's way too easy for people with bad intentions to know the best times to break into your home.
I agree; It's way too easy for people with bad intentions to know the best times to break into your home.
more...
SeaFox
Sep 19, 08:42 PM
and why would this be needed?
So you can run BootCamp on it? (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-09-18/#5921)
So you can run BootCamp on it? (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-09-18/#5921)
pika2000
Feb 24, 12:16 PM
Parents need to do their part, but government needs to try to protect from the greed that that brought us to the mess we are in today....
Oh sure, like the banks for example.... oh wait, the government actually gave them our tax money! :rolleyes:
Oh sure, like the banks for example.... oh wait, the government actually gave them our tax money! :rolleyes:
more...
thisisarcadia
Dec 2, 04:34 PM
just tried to go to the website and it is no longer online
adamfilip
Nov 2, 08:59 AM
Glad to see Apple's share is increasing
Everyone deserves to use a Mac (if they choose too)
and the more Macs around the more people will see them
they more they see. the more they are aware of them.
Everyone deserves to use a Mac (if they choose too)
and the more Macs around the more people will see them
they more they see. the more they are aware of them.
more...
djdole
Mar 23, 04:57 PM
I'm all for more agencies adopting Macs! Heck, one day we might be able to classify them as switchers :D
You do understand that it's not that they're adopting them as their primary system for day to day use, but rather they're purchasing more because (with the slight increase in popularity of the OSX platform) they have to be able to counter said OSX threats.
They're mirroring the increased OSX hacker population. This isn't really anything for any Apple fanboi to be proud of.
Someone recently said Windows is a house with bars in a bad neighborhood and OSX being a house without locks in the country.
That being true, the FBI is just reacting in the expected manner to the increasing the number of criminals in the country (due to the increased number of country houses).
You do understand that it's not that they're adopting them as their primary system for day to day use, but rather they're purchasing more because (with the slight increase in popularity of the OSX platform) they have to be able to counter said OSX threats.
They're mirroring the increased OSX hacker population. This isn't really anything for any Apple fanboi to be proud of.
Someone recently said Windows is a house with bars in a bad neighborhood and OSX being a house without locks in the country.
That being true, the FBI is just reacting in the expected manner to the increasing the number of criminals in the country (due to the increased number of country houses).
batchtaster
Apr 5, 12:17 PM
This is the primary design flaw with the iPad. This tablet can't be the normal person's computer unless every normal person has a tech friend/relative to keep the tablet working/updated. So while Woz is correct that the tablet will be the normal person's computer, Apple's iPad is not yet that tablet.
What iPad user can't figure out how to use iTunes to sync the thing? My 65-year old mother figured out how to sync her iPod classic. How is iPad syncing any different or more complicated than what people have been doing for a decade? iPad does not require a tech genius - or 12 year old kid - to keep it working.
What iPad user can't figure out how to use iTunes to sync the thing? My 65-year old mother figured out how to sync her iPod classic. How is iPad syncing any different or more complicated than what people have been doing for a decade? iPad does not require a tech genius - or 12 year old kid - to keep it working.
more...
scirica
Mar 29, 09:28 AM
Just curious if the daily lines are getting any shorter. The last few times I stopped by (late last week) they were still around the corner of the building at 8am.
Thanks...Anxiously awaiting the replacement of the iPad I lost in New York in January!
Thanks...Anxiously awaiting the replacement of the iPad I lost in New York in January!
Laird Knox
Mar 14, 04:22 PM
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
In the original photo I felt the black/white line was a little too high. In your crop I like the placement a little better. I can definitely see a framed print with the tight crop -- possible a gallery wrap.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
Now that would be something to see - the orange in front of itself. Some sort of 4th-dimensional super orange? ;)
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
In the original photo I felt the black/white line was a little too high. In your crop I like the placement a little better. I can definitely see a framed print with the tight crop -- possible a gallery wrap.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
Now that would be something to see - the orange in front of itself. Some sort of 4th-dimensional super orange? ;)
more...
MacFly123
Mar 26, 04:46 PM
Just because their demeanor is civil does not mean their exchange is.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/03/26/160022-jobs_schmidt_coffee.jpg
STEVE: Do you have any idea how badly I wanna kill you?
ERIC: Yes.
Haha, nice! We should have a 'caption contest' for this pic like they do on Engadget hah! :D
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/03/26/160022-jobs_schmidt_coffee.jpg
STEVE: Do you have any idea how badly I wanna kill you?
ERIC: Yes.
Haha, nice! We should have a 'caption contest' for this pic like they do on Engadget hah! :D
chmorley
Sep 13, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by ewinemiller
...and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction...
...I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.
Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general. Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.
Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.
Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.
I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.
Chris
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
...and then factor out mhz, this is the list fastest to slowest: PIII-mobile, P4-533mhz bus, PIII-coppermine, G4-quicksilver, G3, PII. Of course with the boosted bus on the new G4s, this ranking may well have changed, but the point is, the P4 is no longer the laggard it was at it's introduction...
...I have to believe that Steve and Co. have something interesting up their sleeve because to follow Motorola's plodding updates to the G4 seems like a slow suicide and would be a terrible thing to do to the stockholders and fans of the platform.
Before I get flamed about how it's worth the performance hit and cost to avoid the PCs reputation for more downtime. I haven't a problem like that since NT4 with sp3 as long as I use a top tier vender like dell. The handful of homegrown machines I've built since then have been notoriously twitchy, but is probably more an indicator of my skills as a system integrator not of the platform in general. Some great, true, and sad points. However, you are comparing old Macs with newer PCs. There are other factors besides processor speed that might be affecting your outcome. In addition, I wonder if the software you're using is optimized for AltiVec.
Secondly, I agree that NT4 is notoriously stable. Isn't it a bit sad, though, that M$ofties have to use an old OS to get stability. Nonetheless, it is true that Wintel users can have greater speed and great stability on their machines. It's still not OS X, but if you're comfortable in the environment and get get things done (sometimes more) efficiently, why would you buy a new (more expensive) Mac.
Thirdly, I think Motorola is keeping up with (the bastardaized interpretation of) Mohr's Law over the past year or two. The problem is that somewhere between their speed superiority and today, they lost ground.
I love Apple, but if they don't find a way to catch up, they're dead in the water.
Chris
p.s., Dell a "top tier" vendor?
lord patton
Nov 14, 01:03 PM
With their proprietary dock connector becoming ubiquitous in cars and airplanes, it's only a matter of time before the government uses anti-trust law to crack down on Apple. Not because they really believe iPod dominance threatens the "public good" (whatever that is), but because it will be a way to extort protection money from Apple (i.e. campaign contributions) and sell government services (regulatory predation) to their competitors.
IMO
IMO
tktaylor1
Apr 23, 12:43 AM
Trump is basically the male version of Palin, so I don't want him anywhere near the whitehouse. He's way too far to the right, and I'm pretty sure he would totally mess up the country if he somehow was elected.
Then how do you feel about our current president?
Then how do you feel about our current president?
blondepianist
Mar 23, 02:09 PM
...it worked reliably from my Mac Mini (2010) to my iPad 2 without saying "you are not authorized to play this video" every other time, I would care.
I'm assuming you're using AirView or the like? If so, realize that it's a third-party hack - of course it doesn't work.
I'm assuming you're using AirView or the like? If so, realize that it's a third-party hack - of course it doesn't work.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:12 PM
Maybe Sarah Palin got character assassinated ...
I didn't even know Sarah Palin had character to assassinate.
Imagine that.
I didn't even know Sarah Palin had character to assassinate.
Imagine that.
maokh
Jun 11, 02:20 PM
The AWS 1700/2100 is a weird beast. And yes, the FCC, as well as TMobile, would have rather harmonized the band allocation with the rest of the world.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
The problem is, the reverse allocation (phone to "tower") in the european 2100 band overlaps our existing american 1900 band.
So the FCC had to come up with some weird split band with the free allocations it had, creating a really weird beast that requires custom radios on both the handset and "tower" side.
Also, in case anyone is wondering, the 1800 band has been allocated to the US federal government. Among many other things, a benefit of which is to operate ad-hoc/covert communication networks using commodity european band GSM gear. Go figure.
With the AWS allocation, we will never have a 1800 band either even if the feds ditch it.
In terms of this "analyst" report, what a bunch of idiots. I also highly doubt that apple would create a special iPhone or modify its globally distributed product for what may only be 1-3 million subscribers a year from now. Especially since AWS band handsets will need additional RF circuitry at additional cost due to its obscurity and lack of support on multiband chipsets.
I think that AWS will come only by chance when it just happens to be cheaper than the existing chipset they are using.
bugout
Nov 26, 03:26 PM
Did the add say it was from apple then ?
No but the site says it's glass front and back.
No but the site says it's glass front and back.
No comments:
Post a Comment