Evangelion
Jul 13, 09:17 AM
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 12:09 PM
That's great! I want to put 4GB in my 8-core Mac Pro anyway, so I hope the price lingers there (or maybe even falls a little by the time I can get an octo core). I'd buy now, but I'd rather hold out on the chance that it'll drop a little more, or even on the longshot that they'd change what kind of modules the new machines use.
I doubt anything with the Mac Pro will change (other than the CPUs) when the 8-core models ship. Intel originally was very committed to using the FB-DIMM type RAM in their systems for the next couple years. However, they have since backtracked on that and said that they will continue to explore other options. Who knows what that means... I thik it means that we'll probably see DDR3 on mid-range systems in '07, probably in notebooks as well at some point mid to late year. But I would guess that for the foreseeable future, FB-DIMM is the standard for Xeon workstations and servers, so Mac Pro and XServer should continue with this type of RAM for a while. When Intel finally shifts to the new 45nm process sometime mid/late next year, then all bets are off as they will need to increase bandwidth for both the RAM and FSB to keep in step with CPU growth.
I doubt anything with the Mac Pro will change (other than the CPUs) when the 8-core models ship. Intel originally was very committed to using the FB-DIMM type RAM in their systems for the next couple years. However, they have since backtracked on that and said that they will continue to explore other options. Who knows what that means... I thik it means that we'll probably see DDR3 on mid-range systems in '07, probably in notebooks as well at some point mid to late year. But I would guess that for the foreseeable future, FB-DIMM is the standard for Xeon workstations and servers, so Mac Pro and XServer should continue with this type of RAM for a while. When Intel finally shifts to the new 45nm process sometime mid/late next year, then all bets are off as they will need to increase bandwidth for both the RAM and FSB to keep in step with CPU growth.
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
CAWjr
Mar 18, 11:05 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
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?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
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?
Sigh.
Gay is not a "hip counterculture"; that implies it's a choice, pure and simple. It's a state of being. It's like being 6 feet tall, or having blue eyes, or brown hair. It's simply a characteristic of a person.
You know what IS a choice? Religion. And look at the lengths we go to to protect the right of every last believer to say and do the most ridiculous, hateful things.
taskmanager
Feb 24, 01:02 AM
Apple will come up with something. Their fan base is too strong
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
awmazz
Mar 12, 04:16 AM
Why is this Chernobyl?
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
jobesucks
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 04:00 PM
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
I completely agree that a company that has a timeline for implementing change should be marked higher than one that says "we'll do it" but gives no dates. I still maintain, however, that companies should not be given full marks until they've actually delivered on their promises - at the present moment neither company is actually doing anything to protect the environment in those areas
jegbook
Apr 12, 04:06 PM
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
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.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
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.
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 03:41 AM
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
Don't forget the joys of Virtualisation, and especially virtualisation where just the contents of a window from a VM are ported to a window on the host OS.
With macbook pros cheaply upgradable to 8 gigs and quad-core CPUs there's nothing stopping you from running all three major OSes simultaneously.
deannnnn
Oct 7, 06:09 PM
Competition is gooooood.
spaceballl
Mar 18, 09:25 AM
To be honest, I'm not too upset by this. I've used an iPhone for tethering via jailbreak long before the official support came. I did that fully knowing that I was breaking the rules, and that ATT might mess with me, but they didn't offer an official plan so I knew the risks. I still jailbreak my phone and use MyWi, but I pay for an official tethering plan so I'm not breaking the rules.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
OMG you still done get it:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
Let's try explaining it this way...
When you subscribe to cable, you pick a package that provides you with the channels that you want. There are various packages, but ultimately it's all just video streaming over a cable (bits in this day and age, not analog)...
Based on yours and others arguements, why can't we all just pay for basic cable and get all 500+ channels plus the premium channels for free? Very simply, you're paying for a package with specific features....
No no, as long as you abide by the amount of data in the plan it should not matter how you use it.
You can't steal what you paid for, you buy 100 cable channels that is what you get and use
You buy 2gb and use 1gb you have used 1gb no matter if its on the phone or laptop. 1gb= 1gb
With your cellular service, you chose a package that meets your needs. You have 3 options for data plans at this point, well, 4 technically...
1) Your grandfathered unlimited plan
2) 250mb
3) Data Pro 2GB
4) Data Pro 2GB + Tethering 2GB for a total of 4GB....
Ok? the tethering give you 2gb for the money I see that and I have read the tethering and Data pro are added to total 4gb for the charge. So you and At&t prove my point thank you! Data=Data, they add it together and it is the same.
Tethering is not the same as using the data on your device, essentially tethering is using your phone as a modem. You data plan (which I'm assuming is either unlimited or 250mb) does not include the feature of using your phone as a modem, that's what the extra charge is for....
If you want to tether, you need to pay for the appropriate package. Just like if you want HBO, Showtime, or HDTV you need to pay for the appropriate cable package...
LOL no its the same use of Data as on the phone.
Tethering does not do something different to AT&t, its just using Data
you may not understand how Data is used from the source but I assure you there is no difference to AT&t when you tether and when you surf YOUTUBE on the phone.
To At&t Data=Data and its been their words not mine every time its printed by them.
So far I have not seen an argument that proves otherwise.:rolleyes:
skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
milozauckerman
Jul 12, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.
Just sayin'.
zero2dash
Jul 13, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.
I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.
If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)
I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.
Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 09:34 PM
I probably have met too few atheists. Each of my philosophy professors at the State University of New York was an atheist. But only one seemed hostile to theism. Other atheists, J.L. Mackie and Roger Scruton, say, were made some excellent points in their books. Mackie even discovered a way to go through the horns of the Euthypro dilemma, a philosophical dilemma that you can sum up with a question: Is murder morally wrong because God says so, or does he say so because it's morally wrong? Unfortunately, I forget Mackie's reply. But I'm sue that had someone proved that God existed, Mackie would have become a theist just as Antony Flew did. I've spent years studying theism and too little time to studying atheism.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
gjkiii
May 9, 11:32 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
It won't matter. I am a firm believer than unless you have pressure from a competitor you can take your time fixing your problems. And until the iphone ends up on another carrier I can't see AT&T making improvements for Iphone users a priority. Despite what steve says I believe that the AT&T networks would be better if the iphone was on multiple carriers. It may have been a good decision for steve financially to make it exclusive but its not a good decision by steve for the iphone users.
Erasmus
Oct 13, 04:09 AM
OK, does anyone know how well Matlab (7.1 I suppose) is threaded?
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
Have run some batch files linking 90 simulations in total, which took a few days of continuous running to complete. This is on a 2.x Ghz (Can't remember exactly) P4 at Uni. Could anyone tell me how much better a Kentsfield or dual Clovertowns would run Matlab? (only one application open at once, else its cheating) Would this change between running Matlab under OSX or XP?
Thanks in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment