skunk
Apr 23, 04:19 PM
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans.There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real. Every ancient civilisation believed in gods, part ancestor, part mythology, part protector, part threat. We "sad" humans imagined and invented the lot of them. This ancient chief god of yours has not done much, by your own admission, in the past two thousand years at least, so why would his supposed involvement be any more beneficial in the future? The future is up to us humans, whether "god" exists or not. Get used to it.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:02 PM
I guess all this honour killing pretty much explains the original theory how freedom of women has been affected
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.
It is worth noting that it was during the Islamic empire that the first big scientific advances in medicine were made.
Things were far worse before Islam.
thanks again edifyingG for presenting some very valid points
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.
It is worth noting that it was during the Islamic empire that the first big scientific advances in medicine were made.
Things were far worse before Islam.
arkitect
Mar 27, 04:55 PM
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
No. I didn't mean that you had recommended any book that you had self-published�
No. I didn't mean that you had recommended any book that you had self-published�
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 02:01 PM
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
Emma Watson Harry Potter 7
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
Intuit
Apr 21, 06:09 AM
I got to back chrono up I know tons of ways viruses can hide in windows. Here's a few.
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
Harry Potter and the deathly
Helena Bonham Carter Harry
Harry Potter And The Deathly
harry potter and the deathly
Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore#39;s work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for the Trio
Harry Potter Wallpapers
Setting visibility to hidden.
Using file names that look like legitimate software.
editing the registry to disable 'show hidden folders'.
Registering the virus as a service.
Software level root kit using api hooks to modify the result of system calls.
Hardware level root kit changing the system itself.
.dll injection to force another process to run your code.
The entire window messaging system is insecure you can delete everything displayed in the process list of Task manager for example.
some of these techniques will make a virus completely invisible so don't bash
tutubibi
Aug 29, 11:47 AM
From Apple's response:
"We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line"
Yeah, it was done to help environment :D .
"We have also completely eliminated CRT monitors, which contain lead, from our product line"
Yeah, it was done to help environment :D .
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:47 PM
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
Interesting...
You referring to the big bang, or those reported six days?
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
68164
Sep 25, 12:37 AM
After viewing the ShowTime presentation, it is clear as clear can be that iTV will require either a Mac or PC to function - the whole focus of Steve's talk and demo on iTV was about how to get the stuff from your computer to your TV.
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
sinsin07
Apr 9, 12:44 AM
They want 40 dollars for *that*? I went to go play with a 3DS and it had the pilot wings resort game. It came off as a very cheapy game (I was wishing they had something more interesting as a demo *sigh*)...
harry potter 7 part 2 pictures
harry potter 7 part 2 pictures
Deathly Hallows Wallpaper.
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Daniel Radcliffe in Harry
Harry Potter and the deathly
Harry Potter And The Deathly
harry potter and the deathly
Reacent Post
dnedved
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
This is the device I've been waiting for 2+ years for Apple to come out with. Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans. This hasn't just killed the current Tivo, this has killed the gen4 Tivo that isn't even out yet. It's stolen its thunder by at least a year if not much more.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
bastiangatten
Oct 7, 02:49 PM
Ya if apple didn't further the iPhone OS anymore between now and then maybe. But you know they will come up with something great soon anyways. And I don't think apple is seaking to have the most sold product. They just want to have the best product. Look at the Mac Computer. It isn't the most. It's the best!
peharri
Sep 20, 11:58 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:14 AM
It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
The thing is, a lot of these beliefs ARE hateful.
People can believe what they will, but I'm under no obligation to hold my tongue; you may be entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to have those beliefs - no matter where they arise from - go unchallenged.
The thing is, a lot of these beliefs ARE hateful.
People can believe what they will, but I'm under no obligation to hold my tongue; you may be entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to have those beliefs - no matter where they arise from - go unchallenged.
UnixMac
Oct 7, 07:54 PM
Hi AtomBoy......great english for being from Japan, or are you an ex-pat?
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
Anyway, I agree, the OS X part of a Mac is worth being a little behind on Mhz/DDR/etc...but I still want Apple to be "on par" atleast with Wintel, since I am spending close to double for their machines as if I had bought an unglybox.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:10 PM
Okay, here are a few relevant portions from the iTunes Music Store Terms Of Service (TOS).
Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (�Products�), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (�Usage Rules�). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork (�Products�), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors (�Usage Rules�). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Piggie
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I used a few Bulletin boards on old 300 baud modems, and also Prestel in the UK at 1200/75 speeds.
Don't know how many here are old enough and UK enough to remember using Prestel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
javajedi
Oct 12, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
I'm in the process of figuring out vMathLib. I'm a Java guy, so all this Altivec stuff looks totally foreign to me :(
Never the less, once I get it working, I'll share the results with you folks.
Also: If anyone here wants me to try something, G3 vs G4, or whatever, aside from the square root and integer mult, let me know. I'd actually like to make full featured cocoa app full of test suites.
Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 07:33 AM
Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:18 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.
OllyW
Apr 28, 01:27 PM
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well put.
This is why I don't think it's a PC. It's getting there but it's still too restricted in it's current guise.
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 09:45 AM
I'd just like to direct all of your attention to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=211175&highlight=conroe+merom+imac) and ask those of you who said merom was going to be in the imac: what were you thinking? :confused: ;)
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment