Timepass
Jul 15, 10:57 AM
I disagree. Using ATX power supplies is a stupid idea. I am sure Apple uses higher quality power supplies than you would pick up at your local CompUSA.
If they allow this there will be a lot of dead Macs, from power supplies whose rails aren't strong enough.
Not to mention those who buy the 400W model because it is only 20 bucks and drastically underpower there Mac.
This would cause too many problems. Keep it proprietary IMO.
Well I wouldnt worry about that in the case of a mac. Only people who are really going to replace there PSU are going to be people who know something about computers. A lot of people replace there ram. PSU are not upgraded very offen if ever at all.
Also the people who do replace PSU most of them know dont cheap out on them. Among home builder comminty a thing most agree on is NEVER cheap out on a PSU. Go name brand. Reason being is why would you build a 1k system and then risk it all with a cheap PSU (rule can be cut if pretty much using dirt cheap parts to begin with and trying to go as cheaply as possible (less than 500 and in old spare parts). My own PC rig using an Antec True Power PSU in it (that i pick up from compUSA oddly enough).
I think going ATX is a good thing because it means Apple is going to be using more standardized parts so it will be cheaper for apple to get them.
If they allow this there will be a lot of dead Macs, from power supplies whose rails aren't strong enough.
Not to mention those who buy the 400W model because it is only 20 bucks and drastically underpower there Mac.
This would cause too many problems. Keep it proprietary IMO.
Well I wouldnt worry about that in the case of a mac. Only people who are really going to replace there PSU are going to be people who know something about computers. A lot of people replace there ram. PSU are not upgraded very offen if ever at all.
Also the people who do replace PSU most of them know dont cheap out on them. Among home builder comminty a thing most agree on is NEVER cheap out on a PSU. Go name brand. Reason being is why would you build a 1k system and then risk it all with a cheap PSU (rule can be cut if pretty much using dirt cheap parts to begin with and trying to go as cheaply as possible (less than 500 and in old spare parts). My own PC rig using an Antec True Power PSU in it (that i pick up from compUSA oddly enough).
I think going ATX is a good thing because it means Apple is going to be using more standardized parts so it will be cheaper for apple to get them.
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 12:40 PM
I'd rather have 1000 equally modeled cars, but when you are dealing with 1000 cars it has to be a touch decision to make. Even so, they wouldnt have to redo anything, just copy a higher res model into the resource server.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
Object-X
Aug 26, 05:44 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?
bonehead
Nov 28, 07:02 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
bretm
Aug 16, 11:59 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.
However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.
Slix
Apr 6, 03:45 PM
Never heard anyone say "I want a Xoom!" :rolleyes:
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 12:29 PM
Another potential problem...
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
bigjohn
Jul 15, 12:06 PM
Really, Apple has always been truly at the back of the back when it comes to optical drives. My money says that if there are two optical drive - one is a CD-R and one is a DVD-RAM.
Also, 1GB of RAM, who are they kidding? More like Mac Amateur
Also, 1GB of RAM, who are they kidding? More like Mac Amateur
ThunderSkunk
Apr 10, 12:20 AM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
godrifle
Nov 29, 12:27 PM
... Is Ford going to start asking for a share of the groceries I haul in the trunk?
Willis
Jul 27, 02:19 PM
They didn't. Where is this Mhz myth you are talking about? They are downplaying the use of Mhz was the point I was making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38
Anyone wanting to know about the Mhz myth shall find it there.
These new chips are to prove that the Mhz myth doesnt exist. Just by changing their arch. they can provide more performance with the same mhz, instead of increasing it (such as the Pentiums)
Imagine. If the Intel's were'nt annouced in January... we'd only have them for a month or two now instead of 7. Crazy.
Just goes to show the MBP's truely are designed for Merom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38
Anyone wanting to know about the Mhz myth shall find it there.
These new chips are to prove that the Mhz myth doesnt exist. Just by changing their arch. they can provide more performance with the same mhz, instead of increasing it (such as the Pentiums)
Imagine. If the Intel's were'nt annouced in January... we'd only have them for a month or two now instead of 7. Crazy.
Just goes to show the MBP's truely are designed for Merom
m-dogg
Aug 7, 04:06 PM
Time Machines sounds interesting, though I think I'd have to buy an external drive to ever use it.
What about Safari? Doesn't sound like there was any reference to this, except related to widgets. I'd love to have more control over tabs, like moving/rerranging thier order, adding a second row of tabs instead of the annoying arrow to see what doesn't fit on one row, moving a tab from one open Safari window to another, tab expose, alerts like Ollie's Tab so you don't accidentally close a window with multiple tabs, and a new unified UI to name a few...
What about Safari? Doesn't sound like there was any reference to this, except related to widgets. I'd love to have more control over tabs, like moving/rerranging thier order, adding a second row of tabs instead of the annoying arrow to see what doesn't fit on one row, moving a tab from one open Safari window to another, tab expose, alerts like Ollie's Tab so you don't accidentally close a window with multiple tabs, and a new unified UI to name a few...
Nuck81
Dec 9, 01:32 AM
well turns out you win the delorean s2 in part of the game. so much for that epic purchase :(
one cool thing about this game is since im in front of screen a lot ive been listening to some good new music while playing. been getting back in the old zone. a lot of the old tracks are coming back to me. i can hit a lot of the corners from memory
the required oil change for all used cars sucks. i put in the code for my free car from pre order. got the nascar and the mclaren stealth. that car is even better than my fully tricked out F40! i tried it on a practice track and it felt much smoother.i almost feel liek its cheating with the SS racing tires. oh well it's still fun and if you miss a corner badly it's still your fault and you lose, so theres till some challenge there.
edit: looks like i cant sell the delorean. anyone want to trade?
you want to change the oil as soon as you get any car, even premium. It automatically nets you a 5% hp boost that will degrade over time until you need another oil change
one cool thing about this game is since im in front of screen a lot ive been listening to some good new music while playing. been getting back in the old zone. a lot of the old tracks are coming back to me. i can hit a lot of the corners from memory
the required oil change for all used cars sucks. i put in the code for my free car from pre order. got the nascar and the mclaren stealth. that car is even better than my fully tricked out F40! i tried it on a practice track and it felt much smoother.i almost feel liek its cheating with the SS racing tires. oh well it's still fun and if you miss a corner badly it's still your fault and you lose, so theres till some challenge there.
edit: looks like i cant sell the delorean. anyone want to trade?
you want to change the oil as soon as you get any car, even premium. It automatically nets you a 5% hp boost that will degrade over time until you need another oil change
seenew
Aug 26, 06:15 AM
Well, as its been said that only the bad issues get brought up, I'll share my feelings.
I've had nothing but good experience with Apple. When I first got my 5G iPod, I bought the old iTrip along with it from Apple.com at the same time. Well, of course, later I found out that model of iTrip was not compatible. I called Apple up and told them I bought an incompatible product that was listed alongside the 5G iPod on their site. Basically they told me I should be more careful next time to check for compatibility, but then they refunded me the full $40 and told me just to keep the iTrip. I sold it to a friend. :)
Later down the road, I managed to get a HUGE dent in the back of this same iPod, and it died. I sent it in for repairs, and they sent me a new one (or refurb) really quick, and free of charge. It wasn't even covered under the warranty! (physical damage, that is)
I'm running a 20" Intel iMac, and so far for 2 months I've had no problems, and I hear that once you're past the 3 month mark, you're probably good to go, so I'm waiting..
I've had nothing but good experience with Apple. When I first got my 5G iPod, I bought the old iTrip along with it from Apple.com at the same time. Well, of course, later I found out that model of iTrip was not compatible. I called Apple up and told them I bought an incompatible product that was listed alongside the 5G iPod on their site. Basically they told me I should be more careful next time to check for compatibility, but then they refunded me the full $40 and told me just to keep the iTrip. I sold it to a friend. :)
Later down the road, I managed to get a HUGE dent in the back of this same iPod, and it died. I sent it in for repairs, and they sent me a new one (or refurb) really quick, and free of charge. It wasn't even covered under the warranty! (physical damage, that is)
I'm running a 20" Intel iMac, and so far for 2 months I've had no problems, and I hear that once you're past the 3 month mark, you're probably good to go, so I'm waiting..
Flowbee
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yes, and RIM has a history of making excellent touch screen devices.
:rolleyes:
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Shagrat
Sep 13, 07:56 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
Yeesh!
Bradley W
Aug 6, 01:09 PM
_
gnasher729
Jul 23, 06:41 PM
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.
Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.
Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.
Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.
Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.
Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
That's what Kentsfield is for. It is a single quad core chip, which is expected to fit into the cheaper motherboards for Conroe instead of the much more expensive motherboards for Woodcrest.
Two recent quotes: On their earnings release, Apple said that they are on track to finish the Intel transition by the end of the year. And Intel said that Kentsfield will be available in the last quarter of this year. A single chip Woodcrest is nonsense (much more expensive than Conroe at same performance). Complete line with dual chip times dual core Woodcrest is too expensive for the cheapest mode. By waiting for Kentsfield, Apple can avoid designing two motherboards and still have quad cores.
nitynate
Nov 28, 06:29 PM
No thanks.
I pay for my music.
I pay for my music.
xfiftyfour
Aug 7, 11:21 AM
anyone see that the apple store online says "we'll be back soon - we are busy updating the store for you and will be back within the hour"?
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
Oh, and if it's already been said, I'm sorry - I'm not going back and reading through 10 pages... haha
Multimedia
Jul 23, 03:14 PM
Given the change in Clovertown schedule, I expect that at WWDC Apple will release 2 "lower end" Mac Pro configurations both with dual Woodcrests. The higher end configuration with two Clovertowns will ship early Q1 (maybe around MW'07).
I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.
Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.
January - March 2007
..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.
I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.
When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
I expect it will be 2.33GHz and 2.67GHz Woodcrest models with 3.0GHz as a BTO option. Conroe in Mac Pro is looking highly unlikely.
Anyone care to speculate on Intel's pricing for a 2.67GHz Clovertown? I am thinking $999.Well Swami I am going to have to call your bluff. Makes no sense to skip Conroe Dual Cores on the Mac Pro yet. This Winter 2007 with Clovertowns, perhaps post MacWorld SF. But not yet. And maybe not ever.
There are some who may never find a need for more than two cores. But therein creeps back the need for a cheaper dual core tower line in the same price range as the iMacs. Seems inevitable doesn't it? Expand the Tower line down to $999 and let it go all the way up to $3.5k. Six models instead of only 3 expensive ones.
January - March 2007
..$999 - Dual 2.13 GHz One Conroe
$1399 - Dual 2.4 GHz One Conroe
$1699 - Dual 2.67 GHz One Conroe
$1999 - Quad 2.67 GHz One Kentsfield
$2499 - Quad 3.2 GHz One Kentsfield
$3499 or more for Mac OctoPod Fastest On EARTH - 8 x 3.2 GHz
Two Clovertown later One Yorkfield for less money.
I found that word "OctoPod" in my Tiger's Oxford Dictionary. It's a REAL word.
When they get to 8 via a Yorkfield then the whole line can be based on the less expensive desktop family motherboards and chipsets except the extreeme top where pairs of Harpertown will make 16 etc etc.
You fill in the specs. I can't remember what speeds are being offered. This is all just a wild guestimate for discussion purposes. Please don't flame me.
fenderbass146
Apr 8, 12:56 AM
I agree, this rumor is sketchy. It looks like they have one unreliable source. Still, I don't see why BB is good for Apple stuff unless the Apple store is too crowded.
I agree, if I am shopping for apple stuff, i would prefer an apple store, however there is a best buy every where. I live in northwest indiana, and the nearest apple store is 40 minutes away, and im sure a lot of people have it worse.. It would be absoutly idioitic of apple to quit supplying best buy because best buy has a longer reach then apple to more people.
I agree, if I am shopping for apple stuff, i would prefer an apple store, however there is a best buy every where. I live in northwest indiana, and the nearest apple store is 40 minutes away, and im sure a lot of people have it worse.. It would be absoutly idioitic of apple to quit supplying best buy because best buy has a longer reach then apple to more people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment