mikeapple
Apr 7, 10:58 PM
Best Buy as ALWAYS been really ****** to the customer...
Always had run-ins with workers there and the management always takes the side of the rude sales person... SCREW YOU BEST BUY.. I hope Apple pulls out
Always had run-ins with workers there and the management always takes the side of the rude sales person... SCREW YOU BEST BUY.. I hope Apple pulls out
Erasmus
Aug 27, 02:58 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
bagelche
Apr 5, 09:31 PM
I think it won't be released yet, but they've got it to a strong showable point. Underlying architecture probably relies on a few features tied to Lion (QT stuff and more?). Maybe we'd need to upgrade to Lion for it. Ready to go in June or whenever Lion actually hits.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
citizenzen
Mar 22, 01:52 PM
The big difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq there wasn't a large insurgence controlling a decent proportion of the country before the troops went in.
Good point.
Good point.
Sine Qua Non
Apr 25, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=killr_b;12458559]As a consumer, why should I be subjected to this risk which doesn't benefit me in the slightest? And why should this data be "backed up," secretly, to my computer?[QUOTE]
Your phone stores this so as to keep from having to re-install connection locations every time you move a few hundred feet. It's "subjecting" you to better battery life by not having to work as hard to keep you connected. Oh noes.
...And it backs up the data for the same reason it backs up EVERYTHING when you sync -- so you can restore without losing any of the data on the phone.
What, you want crappy battery life, slower speeds, and loss of data if you need to restore your phone?
.
All I can say is that I've encountered none of these horrors since installing untrackerd last week.
Your phone stores this so as to keep from having to re-install connection locations every time you move a few hundred feet. It's "subjecting" you to better battery life by not having to work as hard to keep you connected. Oh noes.
...And it backs up the data for the same reason it backs up EVERYTHING when you sync -- so you can restore without losing any of the data on the phone.
What, you want crappy battery life, slower speeds, and loss of data if you need to restore your phone?
.
All I can say is that I've encountered none of these horrors since installing untrackerd last week.
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:02 AM
Here's Link To NTI Dragon Burn for Mac OS X (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main).
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
macpross
Aug 6, 11:14 PM
Fascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
That name will be fine, I have no 100% claim to that.
That name will be fine, I have no 100% claim to that.
mrholder
Apr 6, 04:37 PM
Was considering a Xoom, but purchased a brand new 1st gen iPad a couple of days ago through the Verizon sale. Couldn't resist the price. Plus, can't see spending money on new content for the Xoom when I have tons of content that I've purchased through itunes.
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 01:17 PM
Oh boo hoo about the companies being "booted" from sponsorships. The company I work for goes to trade shows. The time invested is actually quite small and most of the materials are in inventory anyway. The presentations are usually based on the same script. I bet the companies aren't that disappointed. In fact they would like to be there and see what Apple is up to more than anyone else. So I bet they'll send the same presenter staff there to view and record anything of note to send back to their company.
Maybe NAB is a different beast than what you and your company typically deal with? The big players at NAB can spend millions and take the better part of the year getting ready (both from a marketing and product development standpoint). At least that's the gist of what I read when Avid and later Apple, bailed on NAB in years past citing a lack of ROI for all the money, man power and artificial product deadlines it took to present at NAB every year.
I used to come to Macrumors to read about Mac news, but now its all anit-apple crap.
You come to Macrumors to read about Mac news...:D
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it.
That would be kinda weird since Avid brought in Kevin Smith to talk at NAB this year.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
Main or only venue? No. Signature event to get quality face time w/their target audience away from the insane cattle call that is the NAB showroom floor? Yes. Avid hosting Kevin Smith is not an everyday occurrence. Canon presenting Philip Bloom was schedule for only the SuperMeet. Same with Alexis Van Hurkman's talk about color grading.
Lethal
Maybe NAB is a different beast than what you and your company typically deal with? The big players at NAB can spend millions and take the better part of the year getting ready (both from a marketing and product development standpoint). At least that's the gist of what I read when Avid and later Apple, bailed on NAB in years past citing a lack of ROI for all the money, man power and artificial product deadlines it took to present at NAB every year.
I used to come to Macrumors to read about Mac news, but now its all anit-apple crap.
You come to Macrumors to read about Mac news...:D
This is a little more out there but my friend has a theory that Apple has let Kevin Smith use the new Final Cut to cut and make his new film that is coming it.
That would be kinda weird since Avid brought in Kevin Smith to talk at NAB this year.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So Avid, Adobe and Canon spent 10 months preparing for a lecture at a FCP users group? And a FCP users group was going to be their main/only avenue for presentation? I think not. This is just another spot they will advertise at during NAB. I'm sure Avid will be at Adobe and Adobe at Avid user groups. FCP just decided to present at NAB at the last second and this was their only in.
Main or only venue? No. Signature event to get quality face time w/their target audience away from the insane cattle call that is the NAB showroom floor? Yes. Avid hosting Kevin Smith is not an everyday occurrence. Canon presenting Philip Bloom was schedule for only the SuperMeet. Same with Alexis Van Hurkman's talk about color grading.
Lethal
blahblah100
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
There aren't any concerns, but since the media hyped this up so much, they had to address it. Now they have. Should be the end of the story. But it won't be since there are anti-Apple folks who will push to keep this story alive as long as they can until the next Apple-gate story gets created.
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
And I'm sure when the next Apple-gate story gets created, the blind fanbois will jump to their defense. :rolleyes:
Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:08 PM
sadly I cant by any more letters to complete a better signature.!
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
tkingart
Mar 27, 03:54 AM
The only thing I don't like in Lion (based on screenshots I've seen) are the "flat gray scroll bars" adopted from iOS, this going back to 2d seems like back pedaling. I think something between flat and 3d would actually work, like get rid of the rounded center, flatten it but keep the edges soft and shaded, keeping the scroll bar wells the same. I suspect it's being flattened because of possible support for touch screens.
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
I understand the need for simplicity and streamlining, but where we lack tactile feedback, 3d helps with the illusion of depth, take that away and it will look like a devolving interface. Look at the OS X dock for instance, I was elated when it became three dimensional, now imagine if they made it flat again (permanently). I'm sure it may be a preferential thing, but I don't think I'm alone in preferring the 3d dock view.
We need to keep pushing forward with three dimensions in UI designs. It would be really cool to see some forward thinking UI changes like the ability to "push" running applications into the inside quad of a cylindrical shape that can be rotated with gestures.
The flat scroll bar belongs in Folder > Grid views and preview, looks alright there. :)
Zadillo
Aug 7, 09:27 PM
gosh, the finder looks the same :( I dont want the brushed metal anywhere anymore!! Also, they should just integrate address book/ical/mail into one app!!!
Did you miss the part at the beginning where Steve Jobs made it pretty clear that a lot of the biggest secrets aren't going to be revealed yet?
Other people have confirmed that the Finders in the Leopard preview is the old one, and that the "new" Finder is being held back for the time being until it is closer to shipping.
So, it's very likely the reason the Finder looks the same is because what we are seeing publically now IS still the same, and we won't see the new Finder until later.
-Zadillo
Did you miss the part at the beginning where Steve Jobs made it pretty clear that a lot of the biggest secrets aren't going to be revealed yet?
Other people have confirmed that the Finders in the Leopard preview is the old one, and that the "new" Finder is being held back for the time being until it is closer to shipping.
So, it's very likely the reason the Finder looks the same is because what we are seeing publically now IS still the same, and we won't see the new Finder until later.
-Zadillo
Rend It
Aug 5, 06:07 PM
snippet
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
Why is Front Row dependent on iSight ?
No good, clear reason. It's just that Front Row usually goes along with PhotoBooth, so.... Also, it seems that Apple might be really pushing iChat with Leopard, especially video chatting, and the iMac, MBP, and MB all have iSights. It doesn't seem too crazy to believe that perhaps Apple wants a built-in camera in all of their hardware. In the case of the Mac Pro, Xserve, and Mini, the natural place for such a device is a display.
Pure speculation, of course. :D
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
Is it really? Is it open for people to look at how it is accessed? I don't think so. If that were the case, it would have been revealed earlier and more easily.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
The information is private. It is only accessible to you and anyone with direct access to your devices. I agree that Apple should provide details as to why these locations are being cached, or possibly a way to opt-out for those who are concerned. To say that this is a privacy invasion is simply not true because the information is still private.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
I don't want them to clear my cache, and I think most users wouldn't either. If this information has a beneficial purpose (which it very well might) then I don't want it cleared. I agree that there should be a way to clear this if a user so chooses. Apple offers a way to encrypt your backups so I don't see how they haven't taken reasonable precautions.
Apple needs to do the right thing and be transparent in this process.
The information is private. It is only accessible to you and anyone with direct access to your devices. I agree that Apple should provide details as to why these locations are being cached, or possibly a way to opt-out for those who are concerned. To say that this is a privacy invasion is simply not true because the information is still private.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
I don't want them to clear my cache, and I think most users wouldn't either. If this information has a beneficial purpose (which it very well might) then I don't want it cleared. I agree that there should be a way to clear this if a user so chooses. Apple offers a way to encrypt your backups so I don't see how they haven't taken reasonable precautions.
JGowan
Jul 15, 02:09 PM
Man if they put the power supply on the top that would just be insanely stupid.-markThat's just some guy's rendition who knows a little about Adobe software. Certainly not Jonathan Ive's work, nor will remotely look like that.
Earendil
Jun 8, 07:40 PM
Why would there be any difference? Do Cheese Doodles purchased form the Piggly Wiggly taste any better than those purchased from Publix?
No, I suspect that Apple's quality control is good enough that an iPhone bought at AT&T and one bought from Radio Shack will taste identical.
No advantages. I mean what does it matter? If it's the white Apple bag you want I can send you one. Eventually they become useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of Warranties. The Apple one will hold no matter what, I would imagine. But I didn't know if Radio Shack, for example, generally has extended services above and beyond the manufacturers.
Or perhaps when an iPhone is bought from Apple a certain amount of data is stored at the time of purchase (like the date) that would make future warranty claims go smoother.
I could not care less about white baggies or taste differences.
No, I suspect that Apple's quality control is good enough that an iPhone bought at AT&T and one bought from Radio Shack will taste identical.
No advantages. I mean what does it matter? If it's the white Apple bag you want I can send you one. Eventually they become useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of Warranties. The Apple one will hold no matter what, I would imagine. But I didn't know if Radio Shack, for example, generally has extended services above and beyond the manufacturers.
Or perhaps when an iPhone is bought from Apple a certain amount of data is stored at the time of purchase (like the date) that would make future warranty claims go smoother.
I could not care less about white baggies or taste differences.
shamino
Jul 14, 04:01 PM
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
Intel has already announced 3GHz Woodcrest CPUs.
The question isn't about when the chips will become available but when Apple chooses to put one in a system.
Which might be in the first batch of systems. Remember, we're all discussing a rumor from an anonymous source, not an actual product announcement.
Intel has already announced 3GHz Woodcrest CPUs.
The question isn't about when the chips will become available but when Apple chooses to put one in a system.
Which might be in the first batch of systems. Remember, we're all discussing a rumor from an anonymous source, not an actual product announcement.
gregorsamsa
Aug 28, 07:35 AM
OEM licensing OS X would not be a panacea. I supported NeXTSTEP/Openstep for NeXT and Apple. We had a nightmare dealing with OEMs who pushed us into the trash heap.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
Good points, some of which I don't disagree with. Yes, "Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS," but I'll still be surprised if it doesn't achieve record sales on release. Though Apple's userbase continues to grow (& rightly so!), the crunch time for Apple in sustaining this will surely come when the shops are full of competitively-priced, Vista-enabled PCs.
Licensing out OS X wouldn't necessarily mean compromising its security; the compromise would come in some of the non-Apple hardware OS X ran on. Much has changed since the days of the original Apple clones that proved to be an expensive failure. Today, technology generally is much less expensive. Customers would appreciate the kind of choice that, after all, hasn't done too much harm to sales of Windows PCs. (I'd probably still buy Apple, but some others may buy a cheaper Dell running OS X).
Granted that the Mac Pro is competitively priced, those recent comparisons with the more expensive Dell workstation overlook that the Mac Pro graphics (Geforce 7300 GT) cost approx $100; the Dell's Nvidia graphics are closer to $1,000. (A point for objectivity's sake).
Like most Mac owners, I believe Apple are still by far the best for overall quality & service (though I think they're currently lacking at least one more consumer-aimed computer). I'm just interested in any ideas that could further expand the OS X userbase, & sustain it long-term.
PS: ROME has already been built: M$. But that empire so overreached itself it now looks as if it's beginning to crumble.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
Good points, some of which I don't disagree with. Yes, "Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS," but I'll still be surprised if it doesn't achieve record sales on release. Though Apple's userbase continues to grow (& rightly so!), the crunch time for Apple in sustaining this will surely come when the shops are full of competitively-priced, Vista-enabled PCs.
Licensing out OS X wouldn't necessarily mean compromising its security; the compromise would come in some of the non-Apple hardware OS X ran on. Much has changed since the days of the original Apple clones that proved to be an expensive failure. Today, technology generally is much less expensive. Customers would appreciate the kind of choice that, after all, hasn't done too much harm to sales of Windows PCs. (I'd probably still buy Apple, but some others may buy a cheaper Dell running OS X).
Granted that the Mac Pro is competitively priced, those recent comparisons with the more expensive Dell workstation overlook that the Mac Pro graphics (Geforce 7300 GT) cost approx $100; the Dell's Nvidia graphics are closer to $1,000. (A point for objectivity's sake).
Like most Mac owners, I believe Apple are still by far the best for overall quality & service (though I think they're currently lacking at least one more consumer-aimed computer). I'm just interested in any ideas that could further expand the OS X userbase, & sustain it long-term.
PS: ROME has already been built: M$. But that empire so overreached itself it now looks as if it's beginning to crumble.
rdowns
Mar 22, 01:50 PM
Where are our strict constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans? They haven't had anything to say about this. ****ing hypocrites.
monster620ie
Apr 5, 08:57 PM
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
are there any 4K tv's out ?
Red Scarlet + 4K tv (how sweet it would be. oh well, I can dream on i guess) :rolleyes:
JM-Prod
Apr 10, 08:17 AM
Faster horses.
Hmm, you want a faster horse or did you think my comments were screaming for them?
If my expectation are met, it would be a revolution in editing.
The second since introducing digital non-linear editing in the late 80's.
Not faster horses.
Hmm, you want a faster horse or did you think my comments were screaming for them?
If my expectation are met, it would be a revolution in editing.
The second since introducing digital non-linear editing in the late 80's.
Not faster horses.
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.