ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:27 AM
Is 99 for your year of birth? It's not like there's ten of them. You've probably had too many nightmares about Woodstock.
Which woodstock are we talking about? I hope the new one in the 90's that one was sweet.
Which woodstock are we talking about? I hope the new one in the 90's that one was sweet.
FightTheFuture
Feb 17, 01:20 AM
No one seems to notice this. i don't agree with much of your post, but i agree with the sentiment. i'm tiring of the Google = Good, Apple = Evil heard around the boards.
they are both companies that are just trying to make money. sadly, people paint Apple as the bad guy either because 1) the iPod was extremely successful or 2) they assumed apple would eventually go bankrupt 10 years ago and are upset that it didn't happen. luckily Gen Y'ers who don't care about what computers run facebook the best are buying products based on what they want, and not which processor is in it.
will there be more android phones than iPhones in the world? probably. but right now there are more blackberrys, more symbian based phones being sold. the iPhone is selling just fine. just because there are a lot of great phones on the market doesn't mean apple will sell less than 8 million iPhones a quarter.
they are both companies that are just trying to make money. sadly, people paint Apple as the bad guy either because 1) the iPod was extremely successful or 2) they assumed apple would eventually go bankrupt 10 years ago and are upset that it didn't happen. luckily Gen Y'ers who don't care about what computers run facebook the best are buying products based on what they want, and not which processor is in it.
will there be more android phones than iPhones in the world? probably. but right now there are more blackberrys, more symbian based phones being sold. the iPhone is selling just fine. just because there are a lot of great phones on the market doesn't mean apple will sell less than 8 million iPhones a quarter.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 02:48 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8008582
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Lucky736
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
Like many of the "It Gets Better" videos, this was very touching. Great job Apple employees, and thank you!
Is there a pun intended here? :D
Is there a pun intended here? :D
brepublican
Sep 12, 04:06 PM
I think this is a great product from Apple and shows great foresight. SJ and Apple recognise that they can't surplant the TV from the living room.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
ThunderSkunk
May 5, 05:51 PM
Well I just came across this in the local paper:
cheryl tiegs now.
Cheryl Tiegs Actress Cheryl
cheryl tiegs. cheryl tiegs
cheryl tiegs hot.
Cheryl Tiegs. OSXconvert. Aug 17, 03:32 PM. It will be exactly 25% faster in UB
cheryl tiegs hot. cheryl tiegs
cheryl tiegs on oprah.
Photo: Cheryl Tiegs, age 63,
Pick a side.
cheryl tiegs model. cheryl
Cheryl Tiegs paired her blonde
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 04:35 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
jasper77
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz, Onkyo, Rotel and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to built ITV inside their recievers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
austin610
Feb 22, 09:44 PM
Surpass? I don't think so. Catching up.... maybe!:D
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 11:37 AM
The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
Counter views?
Japans main problem, at this time, seems to be that someone thought it was a good idea to build the plants on the Pacific Rim (Yes, I am well aware that the West Coast of the United States lies on the Pacific Rim). A majority of the problems Japan faces currently appear to stem from the earthquake and the fact that the plants were dated and not built to withstand the magnitude of the quake (they were built to within a 7.5 quake, no?).
Surely
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
Chundles
Mar 11, 01:11 AM
Yeah that tsunami is massive. There were burning buildings floating on the surge as it rolled inland.
Not good at all.
Not good at all.
EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
There is no way God can exist, bla bla bla...
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
Cowinacape
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
Basically I agree with you, who really gves a rats rumpuss what Green Peace has to say about anything any more, where do there ships dump their bilges when they have finished trying to save the world from it's self?
Hard to take opperations like Green Peace seriously, when their primary motive for being in operation is making money. When they no longer spend about 85% of their budgets on administration, for their fancy corporate offices and top end wages, then maybe what they have to say might be worth something.
The Green Peace, that exsists now in mearly a shell of it's former self, that started just up the coast from where I live, and acctually had purpose and meaning when it was founded. Now it is just a machine, like the rest of the corporate world.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 03:28 AM
Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
Eaon
Apr 19, 02:12 PM
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
1town
Apr 28, 07:58 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 03:35 AM
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No comments:
Post a Comment