i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:53 PM
Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Eso
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
It's easy to make the argument unlimited data plans are priced according to an average amount of data that wireless devices use. The average amount of data used while tethering can be shown to be substantially higher, resulting in higher costs, and justifying a higher price. The key is that their argument may rest upon the price of providing unlimited data. You argument rests upon the amount of data used, however in either case (whether tethered or not) users can use an unlimited amount of data.
silentnite
May 4, 11:49 AM
Safari is not set as a default for me & I only use it if Mozilla is stalling but this is only the beginning for apple with it's continued success comes a lot of security issues for the future.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:20 PM
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Oh snap! :D That had to sting a little. ;)
Sorry. That was rude of me.
It's OK, but you were also wrong, as indicated by the dictionary. Let's try to bring it down a notch. ;)
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=AppliedVisual;2994702]
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
The bug, of course, is that the programmer allocated space for 4 threads (since he knew that was the max number of CPUs :rolleyes: ).
I guess so... Heh. I guess I should have gave it more than a quick glance (did I even look at the array declaration?) before commenting. Oh, well...
requieminadream
Apr 8, 11:02 PM
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
Were they pushed or pulled?
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
dukebound85
Mar 15, 07:18 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Yes, lack of cooing is the issue as it uncovers the core
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Yes, lack of cooing is the issue as it uncovers the core
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
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.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 06:22 PM
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:55 PM
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Actually, thorium-based nuclear reactors have been successfully tested since the early 1960's! If you read this article from Wired magazine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The idea of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been around since the 1950's. Ever since Alvin Weinberg's pioneering research, improved technology has made it possible for the LFTR to be competitive against light-water uranium reactors, and of course there's all the advantages I mentioned earlier.
Best of all, thorium-232 is many times more available than fuel-quality uranium, and it's estimated the continental USA may have 20% of the world's supply of thorium that can be mined out--not including the 175,000 tons the US military mined and stored as part of the Manhattan Project!
Like I said earlier, what are we waiting for?
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:13 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...
What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.
If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).
Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!
Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:53 AM
I'm a straight, white, middle class kid. And even I felt that was relevant to my own life and experiences. While they specifically talk about being gay, the message of how to deal with hardships when you grow up is still relevant.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
I'm in the same group and I saw the message and saw how it still relevant. I just wish they would make videos and focus on the other groups.
Thinking back to those darker times a message like this would not of sank for me because I did not fit in with the LBGT group as I am straight.
Now 10-15 years later as an adult I can see the message and agree it is relevent. But at the time not as good. Hence the reason why I feel they should also try to help out those straight kids who are for example fat and target them directly. Try to target straight kids as well.
CaryMacGuy
Mar 18, 09:11 AM
I will do what I want when I want on a device that I purchased. If AT&T doesn't like it, I can tell them where to go. They can cancel me and I will just take my business to Verizon. I am sure they don't want that.
ShavenYak
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:44 AM
Scary. The videos they are showing are just incredible. Hopefully the worst of it is over and the loss of life is minimal.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
dante@sisna.com
Nov 1, 11:02 AM
Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Thanks to all who have invested time to collect and share information on Clovertons.
I have a couple of G5 Quads I was going to upgrade to Clovertons as well. Now, after viewing this short, but informative thread, I too, will wait until Mid-2007 and make the giant leap.
Appreciate everyone's efforts and intelligence.
Dante
CreativeBeans
paeza
Oct 26, 01:33 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess
BruiserBear
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
ready2switch
Sep 20, 10:15 AM
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
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.
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
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.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:28 AM
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
I cited that verses for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 01:35 PM
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants).
Why do you say that it has to be the Judaeo-Christian God? If there is a god or creator-being, the chances of this god being the Judaeo-Christian God is infinitesimal.
Why do you say that it has to be the Judaeo-Christian God? If there is a god or creator-being, the chances of this god being the Judaeo-Christian God is infinitesimal.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:51 PM
So who was it posting the map?
Speaking of power, your sarcasm meter needs to be on a UPS.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender.
Nice save, and in one sentence.
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
Speaking of power, your sarcasm meter needs to be on a UPS.
It's a global problem, though the US is the worst offender.
Nice save, and in one sentence.
The U.S. is proving to be the worst thing to happen to Mother Earth since the inception of time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment