macnews
Nov 15, 03:09 PM
Any one have an idea how this might affect OSX server usage? I am starting the process of looking to add another X serve and while I like the Woodcrest numbers I see, will Clovertown be a huge impact?
I normally run AFP, Mail, FTP, web services, LDAP and want to add QT streaming server along with some new features in Tiger which I hope get improved upon in Leapord.
My gut says 8 cores would give some performance improvements but I'm sure other's out there know more than I....
I normally run AFP, Mail, FTP, web services, LDAP and want to add QT streaming server along with some new features in Tiger which I hope get improved upon in Leapord.
My gut says 8 cores would give some performance improvements but I'm sure other's out there know more than I....
AidenShaw
Nov 29, 08:37 PM
Living room, car, blah blah blah.
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
Nobody has yet delivered a truly GOOD streaming media solution for my hot air balloon. Are you listening Apple???!!!!! :mad:
M. Jobs can be an expert at emitting hot air... ;)
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 06:13 AM
an iPhone "as a landline skype style wifi cordless phone to go with iChat" should have the display and the camera on the same side... right?
True but Apple have been working on a screen that can display images as well as record them.
True but Apple have been working on a screen that can display images as well as record them.
Built
Apr 3, 12:08 AM
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
a great time on Screamin#39;!
Disney#39;s California Adventure
the California Screamin#39;
The California Screamin#39;
of Disney#39;s California
California Screamin#39; is unique
We headed over to California
California Screamin#39; (the only
of California Screamin#39;.
on California Screamin#39;
and California Screamin.
on California Screamin#39; at
of Disney#39;s California
Pumpkin on California Screamin
the California Screamin#39;
Reacent Post
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
evilgEEk
Sep 9, 09:04 PM
Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
shurcooL
Mar 26, 08:41 AM
"silky smooth" 30 frames per second
Welcome to where the above phrase is not considered an oxymoron. :rolleyes:
Welcome to where the above phrase is not considered an oxymoron. :rolleyes:
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
uv23
Sep 5, 09:11 AM
Lame.
mo-ca
Nov 24, 11:51 AM
Props if anyone knows who used that bag. i do :D
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
i would say Indidana Jones, but i'm not surenope
The guy on 24? I only know that because I was looking at that same bag ages ago and they marked it as the same bag he uses.yup jack bauer from 24 ... got this one too
~Shard~
Nov 15, 08:51 AM
This is very cool, however I think the article says it all:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
"unless you do work normally relegated to high-end workstations, perform massively multitasking workloads, or just want the bragging rights, eight cores is definitely overkill...at least for now."
Of course at some point 8-cores will be the standard and will be slow compared to the 32-core systems, but until that happens, I think quad-core would suit me just fine. Hell, I'm getting by with a single core G4 right now with no complaints, so this isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things! ;) :cool:
iUserz
Sep 21, 03:04 AM
I have had absolutely zero problems with my iPhone 4 and love it to death. 'course I'm in Canada where we're not tied to AT&T but I haven't had a single dropped call.
I'll make my own decision - don't need CR to hold my hand...
I'll make my own decision - don't need CR to hold my hand...
Stella
Jul 18, 06:38 AM
Waste of time. Two reasons:
- Several hours of downloads
- Available in the states only
Apple still haven't rolled out videos to the rest of the world yet ( for what ever reason , i.e., licensing. Apple seem to be dragging their heels regarding getting licenses. It shouldn't take this long ).
- Several hours of downloads
- Available in the states only
Apple still haven't rolled out videos to the rest of the world yet ( for what ever reason , i.e., licensing. Apple seem to be dragging their heels regarding getting licenses. It shouldn't take this long ).
JMax1
Nov 29, 05:20 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
I don't know if anyone has told you yet...
http://www.ilounge.com/assets/images/reviews_atech/icarta/1.jpg
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/mobile/reviews/aft-icarta-stereo-dock-for-ipod-and-bath-tissue-holder/
I don't know if anyone has told you yet...
http://www.ilounge.com/assets/images/reviews_atech/icarta/1.jpg
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/mobile/reviews/aft-icarta-stereo-dock-for-ipod-and-bath-tissue-holder/
Compile 'em all
Apr 3, 06:31 AM
I like.
bubba451
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
zerolight
Jul 18, 05:28 AM
Thing is Steve Jobs is going to pull the usual trick (stupid contracts) and only release this to the American public. Rubbish if you ask me, we live in a world of more than one country. Which is why this sounds like another stupid pipe dream that the rest of the world will never get to enjoy *points at TV shows*.
Iggy :rolleyes:
Surely the TV Shows issue is because the US shows are sold on to European TV Stations, usually after the show has aired in the states. These TV Stations aren't going to be too pleased if they've shelled out a bucketload of money for the UK premier of 24 for example, only to have it show up on iTunes before they've even aired it.
The only way it can work is if iTunes waits until after all the channels have aired it first. In the UK you'd find 24 showing up on something like E4, then Channel 4, then some of the scrubbers like Channel 5 or Bravo would likely have a deal, then it could show up on iTunes. By then the show is so old that there's no point. Hence, I imagine, why we don't get iTunes TV Shows here.
Iggy :rolleyes:
Surely the TV Shows issue is because the US shows are sold on to European TV Stations, usually after the show has aired in the states. These TV Stations aren't going to be too pleased if they've shelled out a bucketload of money for the UK premier of 24 for example, only to have it show up on iTunes before they've even aired it.
The only way it can work is if iTunes waits until after all the channels have aired it first. In the UK you'd find 24 showing up on something like E4, then Channel 4, then some of the scrubbers like Channel 5 or Bravo would likely have a deal, then it could show up on iTunes. By then the show is so old that there's no point. Hence, I imagine, why we don't get iTunes TV Shows here.
danielwsmithee
Nov 27, 05:19 PM
... I haven't seen many dvi's, it amazes me that most consumer monitors are still vga. price = quality when it comes to apple.Um where have you been looking. Look at all of these with DVI (http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?N=200049+4294965732+502399&Ne=502396&cm_re=A%2D%5F%2DHPF%2D%5F%2DFlat+Panel+%28LCD%29&Cn=Monitors_Flat_Panel_LCD).
The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run. The fact is a year ago you paid $100 now your paying $300 for a the Apple display over a general consumer display. Apple may not have many competitors in the pro-color display market but they are still competing against the general consumer prices.
The competitors all use the exact same component as the Apple display even the same model number LCD from the same supplier the difference is the certification process the apple goes through for there color no difference in hardware just a procedure that is run. The fact is a year ago you paid $100 now your paying $300 for a the Apple display over a general consumer display. Apple may not have many competitors in the pro-color display market but they are still competing against the general consumer prices.
boncellis
Jul 18, 02:57 PM
In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.
This is from their site:
Seems to me the difference between this rumored Apple service and Movielink or Vongo or Moviebeam, et al, is analogous to the difference between the iTMS and Yahoo! Music, Sony Connect, Napster 2.0...
Apple just has a knack for getting it right, and it's by allowing the user the most control. I just don't see the service staying a rental-only venture for very long.
This is from their site:
Seems to me the difference between this rumored Apple service and Movielink or Vongo or Moviebeam, et al, is analogous to the difference between the iTMS and Yahoo! Music, Sony Connect, Napster 2.0...
Apple just has a knack for getting it right, and it's by allowing the user the most control. I just don't see the service staying a rental-only venture for very long.
vand0576
Sep 1, 01:28 PM
Thats crazy! no way do Computers (outside of Apple) overlap ALL THE TIME.
Of course computer lines overlap. Check the other online stores, and not the apple online store every 5 minutes and you would know this. Think about it, they almost have to! How many different models does Dell or HP sell at any given moment? How many choices does one need to narrow down? You can customize something like 11-12 machines on other sites, that are all very comparable, IMO
Of course computer lines overlap. Check the other online stores, and not the apple online store every 5 minutes and you would know this. Think about it, they almost have to! How many different models does Dell or HP sell at any given moment? How many choices does one need to narrow down? You can customize something like 11-12 machines on other sites, that are all very comparable, IMO
ergle2
Aug 27, 07:55 PM
I was under the impression when the Core 2 Duos were released, but I hope very soon because they are a measurable improvement over the GMA950 which isn't as bad as everyone make it out to be.
The benchmarks I've seen suggest that it's in fact slower.
Take a look at http://www.pconline.com.cn/market/sh/shoppingguide/changshang/0608/844892.html
The Inquirer - I know, that bastion of rumor-mongering and unfounded allegation - has been reporting that OEMs are saying "it sucks".
Maybe this will be sorted out in later steppings, but these were awfully recent revsions...
The benchmarks I've seen suggest that it's in fact slower.
Take a look at http://www.pconline.com.cn/market/sh/shoppingguide/changshang/0608/844892.html
The Inquirer - I know, that bastion of rumor-mongering and unfounded allegation - has been reporting that OEMs are saying "it sucks".
Maybe this will be sorted out in later steppings, but these were awfully recent revsions...
Compile 'em all
Jul 19, 04:30 PM
23% drop in desktop sales is surprising to me. Is it just due to people waiting for PowerMacs with Intels? It is not a good sign that higher iMac sales are not making up for it.
This is actually the general trend in the computer market since the rise of
portables against desktop machines. Portables are becoming increasingly
powerful (computational-wise) up to the point that the line between them
and Desktops is blurred.
This is actually the general trend in the computer market since the rise of
portables against desktop machines. Portables are becoming increasingly
powerful (computational-wise) up to the point that the line between them
and Desktops is blurred.
FFTT
Nov 23, 06:30 AM
I think what I said about software developers catching up has merit.
It's not just the pro applications themselves that need to catch up to
take advantage of multi-core architecture, but also all those very important
plug-ins.
This especially holds true in audio recording software with some critical plug-in developers still struggling to catch up to universal binary versions of their software.
It's not just the pro applications themselves that need to catch up to
take advantage of multi-core architecture, but also all those very important
plug-ins.
This especially holds true in audio recording software with some critical plug-in developers still struggling to catch up to universal binary versions of their software.
Doctor Q
Jul 18, 02:27 PM
Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.
This is from their site:
This is from their site:
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment