Evangelion
Sep 9, 11:38 AM
Could you just calm down and shut up for now? Really, go spend your posts on other people...no need to worry about my "fanboy" behavior...after all, this is a forum devoted to Mac fans and rumors...so please leave if you don't like it.
Well, since I have to suffer from your rabid fanboyishness as well (and it seems that I'm not the only one), then surely I can say something? I mean, it's not like your posts are invisible or something. Besides, if you post public messages on a public web-forum, do you REALLY have any grounds to complain if someone replies to your post?
Well, since I have to suffer from your rabid fanboyishness as well (and it seems that I'm not the only one), then surely I can say something? I mean, it's not like your posts are invisible or something. Besides, if you post public messages on a public web-forum, do you REALLY have any grounds to complain if someone replies to your post?
mac-er
Aug 23, 06:41 PM
Yup. how much does Jobs saying "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent" say to you? Pissed off is the roundabout answer!
It says.."Yep, we stole their patent"
It says.."Yep, we stole their patent"
Multimedia
Sep 10, 06:31 PM
It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
Love
Apr 11, 09:09 PM
Canada is sounding awfully good to me right now.
Minimum wage is $8.80 in my province (one of the lower wages in Canada, but also relatively low taxes), but you could easily make $11 min. at a good few fast food places. The average official minimum wage is probably around $9.30 here. The taxes we pay are higher, but then there's the healthcare and other social things. Perhaps we can continue that, if we get rid of our current PM who wants Canada to be a smaller-population more-land version of the States...
Minimum wage is $8.80 in my province (one of the lower wages in Canada, but also relatively low taxes), but you could easily make $11 min. at a good few fast food places. The average official minimum wage is probably around $9.30 here. The taxes we pay are higher, but then there's the healthcare and other social things. Perhaps we can continue that, if we get rid of our current PM who wants Canada to be a smaller-population more-land version of the States...
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 06:45 PM
Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
cmaier
Nov 13, 09:13 PM
Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?
Have you even read a single thing I've said? You are defaming me - I'm an intellectual property attorney and don't advocate stealing anyone's intellectual property. So let me repeat what I've said multiple times, this time using small words:
1) Apple has every RIGHT (taking into account waiver, exhaustion/first sale doctrine, and fair use) to use its copyright to limit the license to the icons
2) Apple has every RIGHT to decide what goes into the app store
3) Apple is being stupid in exercising these rights in this case.
Have you even read a single thing I've said? You are defaming me - I'm an intellectual property attorney and don't advocate stealing anyone's intellectual property. So let me repeat what I've said multiple times, this time using small words:
1) Apple has every RIGHT (taking into account waiver, exhaustion/first sale doctrine, and fair use) to use its copyright to limit the license to the icons
2) Apple has every RIGHT to decide what goes into the app store
3) Apple is being stupid in exercising these rights in this case.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:36 AM
Awesome!
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
iMac = Socket 479 (Yonah)
Conroe = Socket 775
So, no.
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
iMac = Socket 479 (Yonah)
Conroe = Socket 775
So, no.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 06:01 PM
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
I don't know...with five lawsuits between the companies, I wouldn't be surprised if the litigation would have cost at least $100 million. But I do think Apple wasn't terribly confident...
Edit: The estimates I've seen say that a typical patent infringement case costs up to $5 million per side. This would probably be higher than a typical case, with $100 million in total not out of the question.
Peace
Sep 5, 06:01 PM
What if you downloaded the movie to your Macbook Pro and went on a business trip? Or you only own a laptop?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
HOW are the members of your family going to watch the movie?
munkery
Apr 12, 08:12 PM
Leopard:
Snow Leopard:
Thanks GGJ.
What about the security sensitive files in /Library? Such as /Library/InputManagers, /Library/Extensions, /Library/LaunchDaemons, /Library/Security, and etc?
I am pretty sure these only have system with write privileges. No?
Snow Leopard:
Thanks GGJ.
What about the security sensitive files in /Library? Such as /Library/InputManagers, /Library/Extensions, /Library/LaunchDaemons, /Library/Security, and etc?
I am pretty sure these only have system with write privileges. No?
Cjm1
Apr 25, 06:08 PM
Yes. Time for a new change in the design. I am a small majority who really hate the current design due to high prices in repairs. Carbon fiber would be a good addition instead of the aluminium :apple:
ericinboston
Apr 28, 05:24 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 03:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about just exactly what the settlement means. But I would like to remind people not to take things at face value - Apple is smarter than that.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
I suspect that it was Apple who proposed the settlement to Creative. More than that, I suspect it was Apple who dictated the actual terms. Creative had no choice but to accept, which was just as well because at first appearance, they look like the winner.
However, I believe Apple is playing corporate jujitsu here. The settlement is a strategic move that greatly benefits Apple in the long term even as Apple is willing to suffer an apparent loss of face.
Why?
Because the settlement gives Creative much needed ammunition (in both cash and legal standing) to go after every one of the iPod's competitors. You can be sure Creative is getting ready to send out letters to Sandisk, which has raced past them in the music player space this year. You can be sure Creative will be sending letters to iRiver.
And most certainly, you can be certain that Creative will be sending letters to Microsoft with regards to Zune.
Really, Apple was not playing from a weak position. There's no other way to say it, but that's a simplistic and naive interpretation. Patent battles are very, very expensive, lasting years and thousands of man-months of time. Creative not only had to fight Apple over its original patents, but simultaneously defends itself against Apple's countersuit (which were filed in a different state, just to make life more difficult for Creative's legal team).
Without any effort at all, Apple could drag the case through the courts for 5+ years and force Creative to cough up tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses. Creative simply does not have that kind of money, after blowing through $100 million in cash to write of unsold inventory last year. The company's cash position is very weak and the company was undoubtedly sweating blood trying to determine if it would have enough cash to see things through the end - an end which was far from guaranteed. Even if Creative won its original patent suit, they would have lost the countersuit for the same reasons.
The prospect of blowing $50 million over 5 years to pay lawyers for a net gain of nothing was weighing heavily on their minds, I'm sure.
I think what really motivated the settlement is the sudden appearance of Zune. That basically gave Apple the ace it needed to give it a four-of-a-kind. Why? Because while Creative might have been able to tough it out before Zune, the existence of Zune would basically kill the company before the case could wind through the court system.
I mean, we saw Creative's share of the music player market dive from 8% to just 4% in about a year. Sandisk, which was a virtually unknown brand in the music player space, went from nothing to 8% in a short time.
Even if Zune is far from being an "iPod killer", with Microsoft's marketing machine backing it up, I think any reasonable person could see that it is quite likely that Creative's marketshare would be dropping to nothing a year from now.
So Apple basically gave Creative an offer it couldn't refuse.
Settle with us now and forget this silly patent threat of yours. We'll give you $100 million to license your patents, if only because you got them first. And now that we're all family, why don't you go after some of our competitors. You'll probably be able to get just as much, if not more, which is a lot better than what you were getting trying to fight us with that Zen thing.
And if you want to let your pride get in the way, I don't think we need to remind you that Zune is just a few months away from demolishing what little is left of your company. A year from now, it will be iPod, Sandisk, Zune....everyone will have forgotten about Creative because frankly, you don't have any loyal customers like we do.
In fact, we'll be nice and help you gain some loyal customers, too. By making great iPod accessories, you'll be truly a welcome part of the family and more importantly, you'll have products that people actually buy. How about that!
Just remember, the $100 million is a kind of loan, of sorts. When you talk to that Microsoft fella, remember to share some of the payments you extract with us. We're all family, right?
Given that the writing was on the wall, I figure Creative realized that if you can't beat 'em, it was far, far better to join Apple.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 23, 05:13 PM
Too bad Apple had to pay when they didn't really infringe.
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
But, it's good that the lawsuits are done with.
We'll see what Creative's next moves are. More accessories and less hardware?
applerocks
My guess is that Apple really did infringe - Steve sounded a little pissed off in his comments, but he also sounded like he really did lose...otherwise, they wouldn't have paid Creative 100 million dollars....:rolleyes:
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:14 PM
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
shawnce
Aug 31, 05:19 PM
I don't know.
Is he?
I thought he was Italian... :eek:
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
Is he?
I thought he was Italian... :eek:
Ya may want to check on world events every now and then :p
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/biography/documents/hf_ben-xvi_bio_20050419_short-biography_en.html)
Eidorian
Sep 9, 01:26 PM
Preemble clarification: I use Toast in a highly unorthodox way - nothing to do with writing DVDs or CDs. I use it most of the time to write DVD IMAGES that Handbrake understands how to make priistine mp4 files from. I am able to reduce a 4.3GB original EyeTV HD broadcast recording down to 351MB using this method. The result is an excellent, albeit soft, version of the original that can go on an iPod or two on a CD and when played on an analog TV looks like a DVD. On a HD monitor it still looks great. Just a little soft.
I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast and Handbrake. I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.
Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.
Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting a hybrid tuner yet so I can record two shows at once.
A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.Well anyone here can start a Guide on the wiki. Ask around if anyone else knows more on the subject. Otherwise I picked you from our previous ramblings on Core 2 Duo and quad-core machines.
Edit: Interesting usage of Toast/Handbrake there.
64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.I guess that resolves the Napa32/64 argument. If there ever was one...
Yeah that will be the Mac Pro Jr. while the rest of the Mac Pros will be running pairs of Clovertowns.Cube? 24" iMac?
I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast and Handbrake. I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.
Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.
Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting a hybrid tuner yet so I can record two shows at once.
A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.Well anyone here can start a Guide on the wiki. Ask around if anyone else knows more on the subject. Otherwise I picked you from our previous ramblings on Core 2 Duo and quad-core machines.
Edit: Interesting usage of Toast/Handbrake there.
64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.I guess that resolves the Napa32/64 argument. If there ever was one...
Yeah that will be the Mac Pro Jr. while the rest of the Mac Pros will be running pairs of Clovertowns.Cube? 24" iMac?
tvfilm
Dec 31, 07:18 PM
McAfee Marketing Department at work yet again.
I bet McAfee also creates the disease and the cure.
Just like the song, "Misery" (by Soul Asylum)
McAfee is struggling for business and it's a shame they use fear tactics to get dumb people to buy their products.
-------
"Misery" (by Soul Asylum)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQ2TIul8pI)
They say misery loves company
We could start a company
And make misery, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to see
Put me out of my misery
I'd do it for you, Would you do it for me?
We will always be busy, making misery
We could build a factory, and make misery
We'll create the cure, we made the disease
Frustrated Incorporated, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to feel
Put me out of my misery
Suicide kings and drama queens
Forever after happily making misery
Did you satisfy your greed, get what you need
Was it only envy, so empty
Frustrated incorporated...
I'd do it for you, would you do it for me?
I bet McAfee also creates the disease and the cure.
Just like the song, "Misery" (by Soul Asylum)
McAfee is struggling for business and it's a shame they use fear tactics to get dumb people to buy their products.
-------
"Misery" (by Soul Asylum)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLQ2TIul8pI)
They say misery loves company
We could start a company
And make misery, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to see
Put me out of my misery
I'd do it for you, Would you do it for me?
We will always be busy, making misery
We could build a factory, and make misery
We'll create the cure, we made the disease
Frustrated Incorporated, Frustrated Incorporated
I know just what you need
I might just have the thing
I know what you'd pay to feel
Put me out of my misery
Suicide kings and drama queens
Forever after happily making misery
Did you satisfy your greed, get what you need
Was it only envy, so empty
Frustrated incorporated...
I'd do it for you, would you do it for me?
robotx21
Sep 13, 10:19 PM
Here is another possible mockup of the iPhone. This sounds more like the description:
mcarnes
Sep 19, 01:50 PM
How long would it take to download a two hour 1080p movie?
freiheit
Sep 9, 02:22 AM
But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities,
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.
Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
termite
Oct 12, 03:23 PM
Normally Oprah tapes a ton of shows over the course of a few weeks, and they are edited and aired over the course of a couple months. So the idea of "tape today, show tomorrow" seems unlikely to me -- for one, they would have to be assuming Absolutely Nothing Goes Wrong during editing.
It could happen, but it seems too quick to me. Alternately, maybe they taped it earlier.
It could happen, but it seems too quick to me. Alternately, maybe they taped it earlier.
puma1552
Apr 22, 08:33 AM
ever heard of the pandora app??
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
door4
Sep 5, 11:48 PM
i know, but in that case apple has to port front row to windows. Or they have to implement front row into itunes or something like that, so that it will work exactly the same way on windows as on mac. as long as they have itunes installed. but that way, all media files (movie store movies, avi, divx, video_ts folders and even photo's) should be stored inside itunes.
Apple will probably just update ITMS to be a better venue for movies. M$ probably doesn't want a new "media center" to conflict with theirs.
Apple will probably just update ITMS to be a better venue for movies. M$ probably doesn't want a new "media center" to conflict with theirs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment