PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:15 AM
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Everytime I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Everytime I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
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.
Eduardo1971
Apr 28, 07:27 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 12, 01:44 PM
BTW, this Japanese plant was built in 1971, which is *older* than the 30+ years you deride the old Soviet plants for being. So there's more of your 'expert because I've got two degrees' opinion lying in more not so expert after all rubble. Speaking of deriding:
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
:p
I might like to point out that the Chernobyl plant was designed to produced weapons grade plutonium and produce power. That put some major problems on the design and put safety at risk. Control rods would have to be able to removed WHILE the reactor was running and fairly often. Not something you do unless you plane on making weapons grade plutonium. It also had to be much larger in size because it needed to produce power.
Yet another reason why this is not be Chernobyl.
We can also add unlike Soviet Russia Japan would not of cut huge safety corners to save cost at the time and over the past 30 years they sure as hell would of improved the plants safe.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
Mord
Jul 13, 08:21 AM
the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.
Icaras
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:57 AM
I very much hope they are coming out with boxed version with printed manuals. Downloading pro apps or suit of pro apps from App Store without physical media or real manuals makes no sense.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
My guess is the full suite will continue to be sold as a boxed version. Apple did not announce then entire suite today, just FCP, so probably holding that for later. It's similar to the way they unbundled all the iWork apps on the App Store, but you can still buy the boxed iWork.
I know personally, I do not have the bandwidth to d/l the entire suite and supporting media. That would take a whole day. I'll gladly pay a $50 or $100 up charge for discs.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 12:37 PM
Its funny that in your guys minds that its better for someone to use 15GB a month watching netflix/streaming pandora etc. than it is for me to use 2GB tethering.
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:10 AM
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
archipellago
May 2, 04:37 PM
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
backinblack875
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 09:24 AM
If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
dudemac
Mar 18, 03:35 PM
Does anyone know how to use the app? The readme file is empty :confused:
to use make sure you have installed the GTK 2.3 from the site that you got the program.
Restart windows... :) I love that part :)
Open the program under the accounts window select login
put your login and password from itms wait until the status bar at the bottom says balance -0. Then just type the artist song etc intot he search
Select the song. to preview it select preview under the song menu or to purchase select purchase under the same menu. Once you select purchase you will get a confirmation window that has a cancel and purchase button once you click the purchase button it will down load to a folder located in C:/Documents and Settings/User/Music this can be changed in the preferences located in the edit menu.
Once downloaded just add the song to you itunes music library and away you go.
enjoy
to use make sure you have installed the GTK 2.3 from the site that you got the program.
Restart windows... :) I love that part :)
Open the program under the accounts window select login
put your login and password from itms wait until the status bar at the bottom says balance -0. Then just type the artist song etc intot he search
Select the song. to preview it select preview under the song menu or to purchase select purchase under the same menu. Once you select purchase you will get a confirmation window that has a cancel and purchase button once you click the purchase button it will down load to a folder located in C:/Documents and Settings/User/Music this can be changed in the preferences located in the edit menu.
Once downloaded just add the song to you itunes music library and away you go.
enjoy
ender78
Oct 25, 11:27 PM
What I see Apple doing is milking their pricing agreements with Intel. The only reason that I can see Apple sticking out so long with Core Duo is that after the Core 2 Duo processors were released, Intel cut prices on the older chips. Intel's manufacturing pipelines are short [announce processor , produce, move on]. Apple must have gotten a great deal on the older Duos [I know they are not old processors, just no longer top of the line].
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
What did Apple have to loose by delaying the introduction of the Core 2 Duo [the sales of 10 machines whose sales went to Dell?]. I suspect that anyone that held out for the Core 2 Duo, bought one in the last two days, and did not go to a competitor. Let's not forget that while every other vendor may have announced a Core 2 Duo notebook in the last two months, Apple likely took more orders in the last two days, than some of those vendors have had in the last two months. Apple now has the x86 pipeline open to them, they will make a move when it benefits them financially, and not before.
I personally expect the the 8 Core machine at Macworld. There is little reason for Apple to release the machine before then. I'm itching for a Quad but can easily wait [especially since I do not expect a price premium on the machine, the next processor will cost little more than the four core version today]. I am also hoping to see Leopard at Macworld.
mangrove
Sep 2, 10:52 AM
:D:D:D
The happiest day of my life finally arrived-I switched to Verizon 2 days ago.
The happiest day of my life finally arrived-I switched to Verizon 2 days ago.
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
Piggie
Apr 9, 10:15 AM
Until Apple give us some physical controls (buttons, Joysticks etc) for use in games that need it, this is simply never ever going to work.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
It's just a fundamental need, and no amount of screen res, CPU/GPU power, memory or anything else is going to fix this.
It's like taking the steering wheel and foot pedals out of a sports car and fitting in a touch screen, with no feedback and a smooth surface.
They car will be hopeless, and never be any good, no matter how great the engine, body or anything else.
Humans need physical controls, and why on earth do you want your hands/fingers to be overlapping the screen you are looking at (the display)
For same game, yes, a touch screen is great and really suits the style of game, for many other types of games, it's totally hopeless and will always be hopeless.
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
Post Title → black ops zombies wallpaper hd
