Edge100
Apr 15, 12:13 PM
Right, lame jokes. Ok. Modern equivalent of female stand-up comics that used to joke about men leaving the toilet seat up.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Real sophisticated.
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
charliehustle
Oct 15, 07:10 PM
Some conventions are worth adopting, if only for the reasons they are created. For instance, when writing in the English language, the convention is to begin at the left, with each sentence starting with an upper case letter.
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
Now, I have no evidence to guide me here, but I suspect you're either lazy, or your shift key has broken on your keyboard. PCs do tend to ship with poor, cheap keyboards based on a thirty year old design.
But the important thing is that no matter if your points were in some small way credible, by presenting them the way you have, you've rendered the possibility of their credibility less easy to discern.
Thank you for participating. The exit is on the left and the keyboard repair service is next to the typing 101 class.
However, I love Google for many reasons. However, none of them is not that they make great hardware, support great software, support great hardware, or understand how to do any of these.
Google's support of Adroid is both admirable and, to a large extent altruistic, as well as an attempt to expand into other markets. But like Amazon, they don't understand the game. The kindle, for instance is actually useless as a textbook medium, yet this hasn't stopped Bezos from hawking it as such.
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in and is the 21st Century answer to the Kibbutz, or workers' collective. Both were very optimistic ideas with worthy ideals. But both failed because they relied upon a greater input of encouragement and resources than they were ever capable of producing in terms of meaningful contribution or profits.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net. But no matter how many manufacturers jump on the Android handset bandwagon, none of them will come close to creating a coherent user-base, or to matching Apple's business model.
And that, my dear typographically challenged friend is the key here. Ultimately, numbers are irrelevant if they only represent a fragmented 'diaspora' of the Android faithful. The sum total will only ever be quotable as a statistic.
it's funny how you're complaining about sentence structure, when it's clear you can't even read...
read post #134, incase you're too retarded to scroll,
here you go
Ya, Don't get me wrong, I own an iPhone, and I can't really see anything coming close to it in the next few years.
And it's not that big of a deal if google takes over when it comes to market share, especially when they're giving android away for free.. (from a phone manufacturer point of view, it's saving them money)
IMO, Google knows that it's gonna be pretty hard for them to increase revenue from anywhere except advertising, and they want to allow people who (for whatever reason) choose not to buy an iphone, still a chance to browse then net easily to click on their adds...
17% of phones sold last year were smartphones, and I think thats going to increase year over year.. and regardless of what hardware you have, all google wants is more and more people on the internet, since they dominate online search.. (Bing is losing market share as we speak, and they're the only company with deep enough pockets to take a stab at google (microsofts operating cashflow is around 20 Billion, apple is only around 10 Billion)
and apple does not look like they will ever try to tackle google when it comes to search..
and personally, if there are over 30 phones running on android, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that for every one person that buys an iphone, there might be two people who purchase a phone that runs on android..
but again, I think people assume that this means apple will be inferior in some way because they will not dominate the market share..and this is not true..
they will continue to make a great product..and at the end of the day, it will inspire other companies to make better products..
and I know I just blabed on, but about the last part of your post.. I think it would be really hard to see who is making more money,
because google does not receive cash for android, but apple gains income from each iphone sale..
but google indirectly makes money off any smartphone that can access the internet (assuming they use google search)
at the end of the day, I like both companies for the service they provide.. I don't have a beef with apple in any way, even though it may sound like it..
next time read before you post so you don't look stupid while trying to act smart..
key word is "trying"
ps. you can edit and send a final draft of my post to me through PM
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:28 AM
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
joepunk
Mar 12, 09:12 AM
I appreciate a little humor now and again during horrible tragedies. As long as that humor doesn't go overboard. It can break ones panicked state of fear.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 06:38 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know).
Ah, the academic exercise. Yes. Love it.
But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
Nope, sorry, no fun "regardless", for others have a dim view of any speculation outside their own pre-conceived notions.
Ah, the academic exercise. Yes. Love it.
But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
Nope, sorry, no fun "regardless", for others have a dim view of any speculation outside their own pre-conceived notions.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Small White Car
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
Great ideas, folks.
Dell is doing something better than Apple? Well then the report must be wrong!
Problem solved, good job guys!
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
GGJstudios
Apr 14, 03:03 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
SRSound
Oct 31, 12:46 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Doc750
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
you people who think being charged for tethering is justified, exemplify what is wrong with this country. You would bend over and take anything up the rear end, just b/c it was written in a contract.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
contracts are crap .. they mean nothing. Many of them don't hold up in a court, despite what they say. They are intentionally written in a manner to screw the consumer. They do this for as long as they can, until a court or a law tells them otherwise.
you deserve all the ******** these corporations are feeding you.
losers ....
I'm going to plug in my phone, and let netflix run for the next 4 hours, as a nice big FU to AT&T, and all you uncle tom's.
skunk
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Exactly what I was going to say.
<high five>
iphonetester
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
I will not be surprised. This is similar to what happened to Apple and PC makers back in the days. Just the sheer volume of PC producers finally lifted Windows above OS X. I believe similar trend will follow on for mobile market. More and more phone makers will adopt Android or Windows Mobile and overtake Iphone OS.
spillproof
Oct 7, 10:44 AM
Other expected improvements in Android for its application store and development environment will be "backed by the power of Google's search engine,"
As in web apps?
As in web apps?
r0k
Apr 14, 03:09 PM
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
Doh! That's what I get for repeating something I read in a forum without checking it out for myself. Sure enough, clicking on the OP user name reveals they posted as recently as yesterday. :o Oops!
Edit (updated info): I got this thread mixed up with the "mac vs pc spec for spec thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=660203)". It was the OP in that thread that was banned. Double Oops!
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
Actually I should mention that it's not simply 7 I'm suffering with. It's the crap our IT people do to 7 that I'm suffering with. I can't watch any Youtube video without freezes and pauses and the applications they make us use should be outlawed as cruel and unusual punishment.
One of the biggest annoyances I brought on myself by dragging my start button to the top of the screen so it would look more "Mac like". I wound up fighting with it day in day out as it overlaid window controls and refused to get out of the way. Once I dragged it back where "it belongs", my life got a lot easier.
Granted I can move my dock around in OS X at least the OS X menu bar stays where it belongs and I never get into conflicts where some window control I need is hiding off the edge of the screen or behind the menu bar. OTOH, the dock gets in my way any time I'm near the bottom of the window I'm using. I should really do something about it.
Doh! That's what I get for repeating something I read in a forum without checking it out for myself. Sure enough, clicking on the OP user name reveals they posted as recently as yesterday. :o Oops!
Edit (updated info): I got this thread mixed up with the "mac vs pc spec for spec thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=660203)". It was the OP in that thread that was banned. Double Oops!
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
Actually I should mention that it's not simply 7 I'm suffering with. It's the crap our IT people do to 7 that I'm suffering with. I can't watch any Youtube video without freezes and pauses and the applications they make us use should be outlawed as cruel and unusual punishment.
One of the biggest annoyances I brought on myself by dragging my start button to the top of the screen so it would look more "Mac like". I wound up fighting with it day in day out as it overlaid window controls and refused to get out of the way. Once I dragged it back where "it belongs", my life got a lot easier.
Granted I can move my dock around in OS X at least the OS X menu bar stays where it belongs and I never get into conflicts where some window control I need is hiding off the edge of the screen or behind the menu bar. OTOH, the dock gets in my way any time I'm near the bottom of the window I'm using. I should really do something about it.
gollum
Nov 28, 08:38 AM
I very rarely get dropped calls on AT & T (been with them since LA Cellular)
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
gnasher729
Oct 28, 01:19 PM
Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:29 AM
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
Nintendo has a truly formidable IP stable, I can't think of any stronger in gaming. I also agree (and as an Apple guy you shouldn't find this surprising) that it's OK to pay �25 for a quality experience (which Nintendo games so often deliver) regardless of the cheaper alternatives. I suspect there is room in the market for both.
There is just one more point to make... how many more copies could Nintendo have shifted if they had released on the iOS platform too?
My personal opinion is that Nintendo understand a certain kind of gaming in a way that even Sony and Microsoft don't truly appreciate. I happen to think that kind of gaming (the Nintendo flavour if you like) would translate wonderfully to the iOS platform and would be well received. I would pay �25 for Mario on my iPhone, and I think others would too.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
Nintendo has a truly formidable IP stable, I can't think of any stronger in gaming. I also agree (and as an Apple guy you shouldn't find this surprising) that it's OK to pay �25 for a quality experience (which Nintendo games so often deliver) regardless of the cheaper alternatives. I suspect there is room in the market for both.
There is just one more point to make... how many more copies could Nintendo have shifted if they had released on the iOS platform too?
My personal opinion is that Nintendo understand a certain kind of gaming in a way that even Sony and Microsoft don't truly appreciate. I happen to think that kind of gaming (the Nintendo flavour if you like) would translate wonderfully to the iOS platform and would be well received. I would pay �25 for Mario on my iPhone, and I think others would too.
javajedi
Oct 11, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:19 PM
colorful chart
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
