slinger1968
Nov 2, 08:24 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
That's the Kentsfield chip not the Clovertown (Xeon) CPU but the benchmarks are interesting.
Just as expected the Quad cores are only going to be a big improvement for the software that can utilize them. Software will catch up with multicores, hopefully by Q2 07 when I'll be buying a new machine.
zarusoba
Aug 30, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
emotion
Sep 21, 01:39 PM
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
Hence the HD as cache perhaps?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
acslater017
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on a particular issue. The Japan tsunami is not the only suffering going on in the world, but people raise money and raise awareness about it cuz it wouldn't make sense to rally around "fix everything".
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by arn
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 10:54 AM
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 10:58 AM
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:23 AM
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
I just love the :cool: expression on this :rolleyes: guy's sarcastic face. Thanks. :D
I just love the :cool: expression on this :rolleyes: guy's sarcastic face. Thanks. :D
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Fewer and fewer each year.
Fewer and fewer each year.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
milo
Sep 12, 03:33 PM
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Nope. This is nothing like a mini, other than the box. Looks like it doesn't even have a hard drive.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
ATD
Nov 1, 04:26 PM
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain for network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:07 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks. Dude did you miss the coverage. This thing plays HD. He played Incredibles in HD. Just because the content they are offering now is 480p does not mean that it will be 6 months from now when this is released. Also the HDMI and component connectors would be pointless if it was not HD.
joepunk
Mar 12, 09:12 AM
I appreciate a little humor now and again during horrible tragedies. As long as that humor doesn't go overboard. It can break ones panicked state of fear.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
malexandria
Apr 15, 11:34 AM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
Ivan0310
Apr 28, 07:39 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 12:50 PM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
speedriff
Feb 17, 06:51 AM
So what is your job at Apple? The problem with Apple (trust me I love their products) is that they don't care what their customers want concerning wireless products. They seem to only change when they might lose marketshare. If you call that good business then I suggest a history lesson of Japanese business practices. They see a company that is succsessful but isn't giving customers what they want, they fill that demand and walk away (eventually) with all the marketshare. One only has to look at Cars, motorcycles, televisions etc. to see it. I am starting to think Steve Jobs is a douche for more reasons than flash. I am always reading articles about him having a little tantrum and banning this or that because someone made him mad. Grow up Steve and give your LOYAL customers what they want or we will go elsewhere when a viable alternative arrives. Don't fall into the, "The bigger they are the harder they fall" category. As for Flash, it may be a little buggy so let me download it at me own risk. Sorry, but Flash is everywhere and I am tired of not being able to view it. Someday that won't be the case but until then...let me have it. I'm going to spend $800 on an iPad when I can't view Flash content? Really? Sorry, not me. I will just stick with my trusty notebook.:apple:
jaguarx
Oct 30, 06:11 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:38 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:27 PM
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:46 AM
And would you pay $40 for it? I'm guessing you would.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
Nintendo has really valuable IP that it would be wonderful to see on the iOS platform.
Nope. But I'd pay $.99 - $4.99.
