blueflame
Aug 29, 10:52 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:44 PM
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
yg17
Apr 23, 09:42 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I have no problem admitting I'm an Atheist and saying "there is no god" in the real world. Seeing how people react shows me who my real friends and family are. And fortunately no one close to me gives a crap that I'm Atheist.
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
I have no problem admitting I'm an Atheist and saying "there is no god" in the real world. Seeing how people react shows me who my real friends and family are. And fortunately no one close to me gives a crap that I'm Atheist.
Quobobo
Mar 18, 07:40 PM
Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
slate1
Sep 20, 01:37 PM
I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo.
I guess I'm lucky in that my Scientific Atlanta 8300HD-DVR works flawlessly and is well worth the $6.95/month my cable provider charges me. Having that DVR functionality included in the box that's got dual-cable-HD-tuners and its own show listing/management software just makes sense as a cable subscriber.
This is why the DVR functionality is meaningless to me with regards to the iTV. Plus, it's pretty meaningless funtionality in the US unless you're pulling SD or HD content over the air. Apple knows this and it will most likely mean that DVR functionality will never be a part of the iTV with regards to the US market.
I'll consider buying the iTV as it stands soon after it's released if it proves functional. If it had even a progressive-scan DVD player included it would be a no-brainer in my opinon and I'd be first in line the day it's released.
I guess I'm lucky in that my Scientific Atlanta 8300HD-DVR works flawlessly and is well worth the $6.95/month my cable provider charges me. Having that DVR functionality included in the box that's got dual-cable-HD-tuners and its own show listing/management software just makes sense as a cable subscriber.
This is why the DVR functionality is meaningless to me with regards to the iTV. Plus, it's pretty meaningless funtionality in the US unless you're pulling SD or HD content over the air. Apple knows this and it will most likely mean that DVR functionality will never be a part of the iTV with regards to the US market.
I'll consider buying the iTV as it stands soon after it's released if it proves functional. If it had even a progressive-scan DVD player included it would be a no-brainer in my opinon and I'd be first in line the day it's released.
toxic
Apr 5, 10:44 PM
forgot to add that the "+" (maximize) button is wildly inconsistent in its function.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
that's what the dock is for... you put your most common applications in the dock, everything else is in the Applications folder, accessible from the dock.
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
cmd + delete
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
cmd + up
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
all necessary files are contained in the application package, any files that go somewhere else are just saves or preferences. the exception is for certain programs, like Adobe ones, where the developer is too lazy to rewrite their code so that all the necessary components are in one place.
charliehustle
Feb 27, 08:56 PM
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
Eidorian
Oct 26, 09:15 PM
I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.I think the FSB issue is over now. I've seen some preliminary benchmarks that dropped the FSB to 1066 MHz. 1333 MHz offered a little improvement. If you need MORE CORES, get them now.
Did youknow I'd be following this thread Multimedia? Music to my ears I tell ya... It's to be expected. I should show up more often too.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 04:48 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
MACRUS
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
portishead
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
I don't think many people are going to feel this way.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
How so?
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
Avid is still probably better for film work, but it's hard to tell until we get our hands on FCPX.
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
You can use a separate app. Nobody has said anything about abandoning color. I'm sure there will be a title tool. It's probably not ready yet. This was a PREVIEW after all.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
The app was re-written. Certainly features aren't going to carry over right away. Short term, there will be some drop off, but after a release or two, FCPX could grow into a nice app.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 06:39 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) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 11:37 AM
The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 01:23 PM
Godwined! FTW!
Had to do it! We are like 11 pages in.
Had to do it! We are like 11 pages in.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
Then you don't accept us as we are. All of us are what we do. That's the measure of any human being. We can all say all kinds of things, but in the end, what we do is what matters.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:30 PM
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.
I agree with you, it's not an option for some countries, but there are lots of deserts on this planet, apparently some by our own making. :(
I agree with you, it's not an option for some countries, but there are lots of deserts on this planet, apparently some by our own making. :(
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:51 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.
I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)
I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.
I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)
I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 05:04 PM
You're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
skunk
Apr 26, 05:20 PM
Have we just passed through the looking glass? :confused:
wordoflife
Mar 18, 11:53 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I know its in the contract, but thats cheap.
Scarlet Fever
Jul 12, 01:26 AM
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Funny choice, noting your username...
Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.
Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...
As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.
Howdr
Mar 18, 01:10 PM
Look I'm not childish or demanding I just disagree with the way At&t has sucked many of us into the Unlimited plan from the beginning. After a time we all had it and they came out with the secrete 5GB idea. You want posts of me complaining back in 2008? Why ? I don't have to prove anything to anyone to state my opinion and dislike of the policy.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment