AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 10:28 AM
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
I have to agree there as well. My G5 Quad is one of the nicest computers I've ever owned. Definitely one of the top 3, possibly the best. And that's saying a lot considering the types of PCs and Unix systems I've owned over the years. I've never had one bit of trouble with it and it's still rather powerful compared to what's out there now. Although, I can see why people would want to sell... I've been watching the G5 systems selling on ebay, hoping I could get a deal on another one, but it's not happening. They're going for just as much as a new one did last January. I could probably sell mine (8GB RAM, FX4500, 2x500GB HD) for more than what I paid for it initially.. Very tempting and I may consider that in another month when the 8-core Mac Pros are released. Because while the G5 Quad is an awesome system, the reality is that as soon as all my software goes universal, it becomes obsolete. ...I have no use for Classic or anything that's still PowerPC native. The only software I use that hasn't made the universal/Intel transition is Adobe CS2. And it runs OK as is on my MBP, not great, but at least it's usable and still faster than it was on my older dual G4.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
Multimedia
Nov 2, 09:10 PM
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.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
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.A significant amount of multimedia related software already will use more than two cores and can be run simultaneously to easily hose an 8-core Mac Pro now.
writingdevil
Apr 13, 05:23 AM
many of these are from non full time editors if you read posts over time..and if you follow the site, the usual suspects pick up on part of somebody else's post, try to put a twist on it, and post it without having real understanding of the heart of the topic. we started on avid in first project in film school through four years of filmmaking, then onto feature jobs, and this system rocks. murch, coen bros, coppola, lots of features using fcp and endorse it totally. people in my pops generation started on other systems and somewhere along the way, jus got tired of learning new tech, although they're still damn good editors.
rxse7en
Oct 12, 03:20 PM
Dammit! Dell just dropped the price of the 24" LCD today to $679. That's a hell of a deal for a 24", I think I may have to pull the trigger on one tonight as I really need some screen real estate to work in--this is getting ridiculous working on mags on 15" MBP and a craptastic 17" LCD I stole from my wife. Then, if they drop the prices on the 24s and 30s on Black Friday I'll buy another one.
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
Regarding the Mac Pro, unless the mobos are going to change dramatically and they intend on adding some other voodoo hardware, I think I may just buy the 2.66 quad now and upgrade the processors when necessary.
B
cwe
Sep 26, 02:01 PM
November or December at the latest. It will simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will be a silent upgrade.
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
archipellago
May 2, 04:11 PM
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It doesn't hold water.
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:11 PM
Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
THX1139
Oct 12, 07:23 PM
You think Dell will sell them for even less on Black Friday? - November 24 for you unfamiliar with the term.
...
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
All that and just to jack videos off the cable TV. I would think a combination tivo and digital DVD recorder would be the cheaper solution. ... Whew! Still not sure how you can financially justify all that hardware without some kind of return. Must be an expensive hobby?? :rolleyes:
...
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
All that and just to jack videos off the cable TV. I would think a combination tivo and digital DVD recorder would be the cheaper solution. ... Whew! Still not sure how you can financially justify all that hardware without some kind of return. Must be an expensive hobby?? :rolleyes:
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
iekozz
Apr 28, 07:28 AM
However the iPad is not a pc, so this report is a bit on the Apple side here.
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
iJohnHenry
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Vatican, and the Pope by extension, is rapidly becoming "Captain Dunsel" in the ST-TOS vernacular.
heyisa
Sep 20, 11:53 AM
I'd rather wait for a mac mini w/iTV combo,
that would allow you to stream Bonjour content as well.
(could you imagine that in a dorm network!).
I think the second generation of this will be awesome, if apple does it screw it up.
I hope you could also use it as a seperate monitor for a computer.
Would make it really easy to hook up a computer to a projector that way.
that would allow you to stream Bonjour content as well.
(could you imagine that in a dorm network!).
I think the second generation of this will be awesome, if apple does it screw it up.
I hope you could also use it as a seperate monitor for a computer.
Would make it really easy to hook up a computer to a projector that way.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 02:26 AM
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
joncdixon
May 6, 01:59 AM
I have been with Sprint, T-Mobile and Now AT&T. Moving to AT&T the day after the release of the 2G iPhone.
How can this story be marked as new?!?
For the past 3 years I have told it like it is....
The iPhone is the best device on the planet: on the worst possible network!
With huge profit sharing, I feel Apple will never leave AT&T.
I will continue to use my 3G until the day they release of version 4.
How can this story be marked as new?!?
For the past 3 years I have told it like it is....
The iPhone is the best device on the planet: on the worst possible network!
With huge profit sharing, I feel Apple will never leave AT&T.
I will continue to use my 3G until the day they release of version 4.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 10:28 AM
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:40 PM
Somewhere I think I read that Fukushima Dai-ichi was just a few months away from final retirement of the entire facility after twice its designed lifetime. But there almost certainly must be spent fuel rods in all the basins, since fuel changes are done at least as often as 18 months and spent fuel takes two to four years to cool enough to be safely moved offsite. The fuel still contains enough U-235 to produce considerable heat from just decay, but internal pollutants reduce its ability to contribute in a reactive core. Presumably, spent fuel is not considered to be able/likely to generate a critical event (neutron flux is too compromised by pollutants) so it would not require such sturdy containment as would a reactor.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
Dippo
Mar 18, 07:44 PM
Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced".
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
H. Flower
Apr 13, 12:01 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
OllyW
Apr 13, 02:41 AM
I bet the guy who destroyed iMovie 06 has something to do with this. Lets just hope I'm wrong.
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Do you mean the same guy who led the team that created Final Cut Pro in the first place? ;)
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:15 PM
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
