i3iz
Sep 26, 02:00 AM
old news...check this webpage:http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
"We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional. "
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:18 PM
Can we talk about Greenpeace's environmental track record for a minute?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
- They mourn the millions of gallons of gasoline burned by cars, but refuse to support diesel fuel, which, while slightly more polluting than gas, is nearly twice as efficient, meaning collective fuel consumption would be cut dramatically.
- They champion E85, which provides only about 70% of the efficiency of gas and requires nearly a gallon of gas to manufacture per gallon of E85.
- Ditto the above for hydrogen-based fuels.
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
So who is Greenpeace accountable to?
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:21 PM
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
Wow people are ignorant. It is clearly not Windows only. I can compile it on my mac if I want to. You must not have any idea what you are talking about.
dgree03
Apr 28, 09:30 AM
Let me try to explain what I mean from a different angle:
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
The number of PCs being sold could remain constant and still fall behind tablet sales in the future. Why? The market expands. Think about who could use a mainframe back in the day. Very few companies. Then minicomputers came along and suddenly many more companies could get one. The market expanded, and even if mainframe sales remained constant, minicomputer sales surpassed them.
Tablets will appeal to those who never got comfortable with PCs. Or who never bothered getting one at all. I've personally seen toddlers and 80-year-olds gravitate toward the iPad naturally. It just fits them perfectly. There's none of that artificial abstraction of a keyboard or mouse between their fingers and the device, they just interact directly. It appeals to them.
Someone who uses a PC almost exclusively for email and web surfing will find a tablet appealing to them.
Programmers and professional writers used to keyboards will not find a tablet appealing to them. Not yet, at least.
So when the market balloons yet again to take in the Tablet Era, PCs will continue to be sold, but the number of users in this new market will be larger than the market that existed in the PC Era. Many PC users will move to tablets, and many folks who never enjoyed (or even used) PCs will grab a tablet. It will be bigger than the PC market by 2020.
And by the way, the price premium referred to earlier in this thread? That's unique to Macs versus PCs because Apple does not compete in the low-end of the market. But in the smart phone and tablet markets, there is NO price premium. One day people will forget that Apple ever made "high-priced" items since it simply won't be true compared with the competition.
As for Apple never making headway, they are merely the most profitable computer company on the planet. Nice lack of headway if you can get it.
Oh i completely understand what you mean, thanks for the further clarification.
Lets not forget that we are dealing with a more "computer" savvy generation. Your examples of 80yr olds and infants is generally correct, but when those infants get to school, they will be using desktops(at school.) I think the barrier that existed with PC emergence in the late 80's is still prevalent today, not with the youger crowd anyway.
I think it will get to the point where people will have multiple devices in their homes. Just like people have laptops, desktops, and tablets(like myself) They will each have a place, but I just dont think tablets will run desktops and laptops out of peoples homes and time in the next 10-15 years.
theheadguy
May 5, 07:02 PM
I've never had a dropped call.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
miles01110
May 2, 09:42 AM
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
GGJstudios
May 4, 02:59 PM
You're operating based on assumptions that because it hasn't happened in a meaningful way that it cannot happen and I think that is a false sense of security paramount to emotional fanaticism.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
Please quote when I have ever indicated that Macs cannot or will not get malware or viruses. Before you falsely accuse me of having such assumptions, take the time to read the Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4) I've posted in so many of these threads.
Since no OS, including Mac OS X, is immune to malware threats, this situation could change at any time, but if a new virus is discovered, the news media, forums, blogs, etc. will be instantly buzzing with the news.
Get your facts right before you make assumptions about me.
skunk
Mar 25, 11:14 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Rocketman
Sep 26, 01:12 PM
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
chrono1081
Apr 28, 12:28 PM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
You've obviously never used one to its full potential.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:34 PM
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom
2011 rolls royce phantom
Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead
Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead
Rolls Royce Drophead Coupe
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
leekohler
Mar 26, 01:04 AM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
WTF? Who said that anyone should be copulating in public? You have completely lost this argument at this point. Not to mention your mind...This has just gotten stupid.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
LagunaSol
Apr 9, 09:24 PM
Real StarCraft for iPad, Blizzard. Make it happen.
MacRumors
May 2, 08:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/094840-macdefender.jpg
Antivirus firm Intego today noted (http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/) the discovery of new malware known as "MACDefender" targeting Mac OS X users via Safari. According to the report, the malware appears to be being deployed via JavaScript as a compressed ZIP file reached through Google searches.When a user clicks on a link after performing a search on a search engine such as Google, this takes them to a web site whose page contains JavaScript that automatically downloads a file. In this case, the file downloaded is a compressed ZIP archive, which, if a specific option in a web browser is checked (Open "safe" files after downloading in Safari, for example), will open.More information is available in Apple's support communities (1 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029144), 2 (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3029310)), where users report that the malware is popping up directly in Google image searches.
Users running administrator accounts and with the Safari option to open "safe" files automatically checked appear to be most at risk, with some claiming that no notification of installation was seen or password required. Only when a screen popped up asking for a credit card number to sign up for virus protection did they realize that malware had been installed on their systems.
For those infected with the MACDefender malware, the following steps are recommended:
1. Open Applications > Utilities > Activity Monitor and quit any processes linked to MACDefender.
2. Delete MACDefender from the Applications folder.
3. Check System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items for suspicious entries
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering.
Full details on the malware and the simplest steps needed for its complete removal are still being investigated.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
Article Link: New 'MACDefender' Malware Threat for Mac OS X (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/new-macdefender-malware-threat-for-mac-os-x/)
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 08:49 PM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
Now for the parents...
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
Perhaps it was a exaggeration, but I think I proved my original point that buying your TV shows from iTunes could easily exceed your monthly cable bill (maybe not for a single person, but once you get a whole family watching TV, it isn't that hard).
...Plus, how do you get your local/national news and sports shows? ...and no, news & sports "highlights" from iTunes don't count.
Dude. If this is your family, you need to be watching less TV and getting outside more. Or at least stay inside and play board-games with the kids. It's much more fun than vegging out on the couch.
geeze. Yeah, if I watched that much TV, I'd be complaining about the iTS too!
-Clive
dudemac
Mar 18, 07:11 PM
DRM has everything
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
I have to disagree that this is somehow a security breach. I have seen other front-end for the itms, just not ones that allowed purchase. It has been awhile but I think there was a extension in firefox that allowed you to access the itms database. So really this is just a feature enhancement of that.
Bonte
Sep 22, 07:47 AM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
Here in Europe we don't have that problem so much but i'm going crazy if i have to watch all the dumb advertising on the US networks, you guys pay much more then just the cable cost. Every 5 minutes there's a commercial brake and the endless repeating of the facts after it. I am willing to pay not to have these annoyances.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:34 PM
In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Taz Mangus
Apr 20, 08:00 PM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 06:18 PM
According to the APA there is no sound science behind conversion therapy.
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
Some quotes from Nicolosi:
�If the father drops the kid and the kid gets brain damage, at least he�ll be straight. Small price to pay.�
�When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.�
�I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.�
No comments:
Post a Comment