btrav13
Jun 7, 08:37 PM
So, serious question: Why do people put up with ATT?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
Multimedia
Nov 3, 11:32 AM
Anyone hear of Apple going the opposite direction with the Xeon.
i.e. how about a single dual-core?To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 coresSingle Dual Core is out of the question. We're way past wanting-needing less than 4-cores. Xeon are made to be used in pairs. What you probably mean is discussed above - a single 4-core Kentsfield processor (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3014347&postcount=239) in a Conroe motherboard. Some of us hope that will be a sub $2k offering next year.
More like:
4 cores 2006
8 cores 2007
16 cores 2008
32 cores 2009
64 cores 2010
i.e. how about a single dual-core?To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 coresSingle Dual Core is out of the question. We're way past wanting-needing less than 4-cores. Xeon are made to be used in pairs. What you probably mean is discussed above - a single 4-core Kentsfield processor (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3014347&postcount=239) in a Conroe motherboard. Some of us hope that will be a sub $2k offering next year.
More like:
4 cores 2006
8 cores 2007
16 cores 2008
32 cores 2009
64 cores 2010
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
!� V �!
Apr 9, 09:11 PM
I agree with another commenter regarding removal of default applications i.e. Game Centre, Weather. I believe you can deactivate YouTube via system preferences and it hides the application, why not the same for other default apps.
Apple 26.2
Apr 15, 04:09 PM
Whatever differences exist, you'll get used to them.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:38 AM
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Oh man. Utterly ridiculous. I'm trivializing the issue? No, I'm putting it in a more accurate and less political context. And you call that hate!
Second, don't drag me into the ridiculous "born gay / chose to be gay" false dichotomy. I swear that gays invented that one just to trick dimwitted social conservatives into parroting it. It's a really poor rendering of Nature vs. Nurture, which is a spectrum and not a binary condition. And it doesn't matter. It's the behavior which is either morally wrong or isn't, so pick your side and argue it. Just don't argue that a behavior is moral because you were "born that way". That opens up a seriously dangerous can of worms.
You also end up implying that because fat people weren't "born that way", it's ok to mistreat them.
And then you finish it off with "I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people"... well that's great. I never said I don't like homosexual people. But I guess you didn't quite accuse me of that with that sentence either. I don't care if you hate your mom and puppies either. You don't hate your mom, do you? And if you do, why? Why don't you love your mom?
archipellago
May 2, 05:10 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
benixau
Oct 10, 11:29 AM
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
leekohler
Mar 28, 10:01 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Exactly. I didn't get it either.
grubesteak
Sep 26, 12:29 AM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips? I'm all for the advancement of new technology, but I'm not forking over any money just yet.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
Jack Stacks
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
AT&T already gets $50 I'll be damned if I pay anymore for the 1 time a month I actuly need to pull up a full web page due to flash. Yes they get $50 for data, $30 for my unlimited plan (I use ~1gb) and $20 for unlimited texts which is simply insanely small amounts of data.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt. All you idiots need to read up about Ma Bell and the **** they tried pulling years ago. It's headed back in that direction now.
To all the morons who say if you don't like it don't get it. Your right the carriers should rule over ours lives. We should simply not have phones if we don't want to grab our ankles and like it, every time the phone companies come up with a new way to stick it to us.
Weak minds will continue to be brainwashed by larger corporations site any TOS you want. Your the same people that argued about how AT&T needed 2 years to get MMS to work, and they were right. Probably the same lot that gladly ponied up extra cash to unclock Bluetooth and ringtones on your celluar one / vzn phones.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:17 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
![ipod touch 2g 1g. and iPod Touch 1G/2G]](http://www.winandmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/redsnow072-mac00.png "and iPod Touch 1G/2G]")
bokdol
May 2, 01:57 PM
i just cleaned out of the the computers at work. and the person had the installer window still open. they pressed ok but because they had 10 other windows open they really did not realize they authorized it to install.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
mikethebigo
Apr 8, 10:46 PM
This shows how much Apple has learned from the past. They will not make the same mistake they did during the Mac vs. PC era by ignoring games. They're throwing the best mobile GPUs into their products and advertising gaming heavily, good for them.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 08:35 AM
This thread just shows that there are plenty of people in the world who think in self-centric ways - "I don't agree with this and I won't follow it - contract be damned."
Happens everyday - people speed on the highways because they feel that it's their car and they should be able to do whatever they want - they support their speeding by saying that studies show the speed limits are merely to provide revenue streams to municipal gov'ts.
Re: Napster and Limewire ... just delete and replace with things like Demonoid and ThePirateBay and it's all still relevant. The fact that someone isn't aware of the newer piracy sites just means that they've probably steered torwards legitimate pay sites like the rest of the community.
But hey, if we all played by the rules, I guess the U.K. flag would still be flying over our land as we would not have objected to the taxation without representation (whether the SS flag would have eventually superseded it is a different question - the might of this North American body would probably still have been sufficient regardless which flag, the Stars and Stripes or the Union Jack flew).
happy day to all!
[For the record, I think charging extra for tethering is unfair - but charging exorbitant rates for SMS is also unfair --- make that "was" also unfair, since there are plenty of cheaper methods now than using the carrier - hopefully the same will happen with tethering).
Happens everyday - people speed on the highways because they feel that it's their car and they should be able to do whatever they want - they support their speeding by saying that studies show the speed limits are merely to provide revenue streams to municipal gov'ts.
Re: Napster and Limewire ... just delete and replace with things like Demonoid and ThePirateBay and it's all still relevant. The fact that someone isn't aware of the newer piracy sites just means that they've probably steered torwards legitimate pay sites like the rest of the community.
But hey, if we all played by the rules, I guess the U.K. flag would still be flying over our land as we would not have objected to the taxation without representation (whether the SS flag would have eventually superseded it is a different question - the might of this North American body would probably still have been sufficient regardless which flag, the Stars and Stripes or the Union Jack flew).
happy day to all!
[For the record, I think charging extra for tethering is unfair - but charging exorbitant rates for SMS is also unfair --- make that "was" also unfair, since there are plenty of cheaper methods now than using the carrier - hopefully the same will happen with tethering).
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
FoxyKaye
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
FoxyKaye
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
So, what, this leaves us with:
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:35 PM
bad example. ok so you think that o-zone deterioration has NO effect on global warming?
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
First of all, I did study physics before, but this is not my area eventhough I work in research. But I do know this, the actual causuality between the deterioation of the ozon layer and global warming is very complex.
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment