Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by MH01 View Post
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
Fighting credit card fraud,
An understandable credit card
of credit card fraud.
Credit Card Fraud detection
year in credit card fraud
Massive credit card fraud ring
credit card fraud
Credit card fraud
Credit Card Purchase
against credit card fraud.
for credit card fraud and
for credit card fraud
1) Credit Card Fraud
Identity Fraud cartoon 4
Tourist card fraud soars
Credit Card Fraud!
CREDIT and debit card fraud
gnasher729
May 2, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
flopticalcube
Apr 23, 10:46 AM
This is just a form of soldier conditioning. Don't fool yourself into thinking we don't do this to our own soldiers. That's why we get them when they are young 18 year olds who are impressionable and tell them they are doing this for "god and country". The good wolves will "go to heaven" protecting the sheep. "God Speed" in their mission. Being sent out to get blown up by an IED is as cannon fodderish as strapping one to your chest. The only difference is that the latter tactic is used in times of despiration against an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Just like Kamakazis, Viet Cong, etc. And now these ppl make our TV's and clothing. ;)
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
And that's why its so hard for "Atheists" to "come out" in the military, eh? Look past the surface and the exact words (heaven, prayers, freedom, hero...use whatever words you want) and the concept is still the same. Even the CIA told the Afghans during the cold war that they will "go to god" if they die fighting the Russians. It's funny when you see some white dude surrounded by turbaned ppl saying this in those old videos. Believe what you want but in a sense, we do "brainwash" our troops. And to good effect, because it makes them do their job willingly and better. And it gives them comfort when they know they will die taking a bullet for oil.
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
paradox00
Oct 7, 12:15 PM
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Completely agree.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Completely agree.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 06:28 PM
SO-DIMM, yes. FB-DIMM, no.
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
I still have to disagree with that. They've priced their RAM on Macbook Pro systems in a way that it's not really worth it to buy a second 1GB stick elsewhere, better to get the matched pair when you buy. 2GB module pricing is about $150 higher than elsewhere. For the Macbook, it's still cheaper to buy a system with the lowest config and then buy elsewhere. Apple wants $500 to upgrade the blackbook from 2x256 to 2x1GB. That's nuts. I can buy 2x1GB for right at $200 from any decent vendor and that's good, name-brand memory modules. So how do you figure their prices on SO-DIMMs are competitive. :confused:
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 11:41 AM
Yep. Now I can't get the idea of orbiting teapots out of my mind.
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
Or His noodley tendrils?
Some of you have seen this item, hopefully. ;)
The twisted spaghetti (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-04/21/hubble-birthday) of cosmic arms....
jmadlena
Oct 7, 02:22 PM
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
rtdunham
Sep 22, 01:56 PM
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
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:
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
G58
Oct 8, 03:32 AM
Three questions:
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Are Gartner talking about the US market or the World market?
Is this guess based on 40 different Android handsets?
What number of iPhone carriers did they model?
This is not only the kind of dumb prediction that so exercises Nassim Talib, it is utterly meaningless and almost certainly wrong.
If you look at the two platforms, it's clear one [Apple's iPhone] is on a clear path that's now 28 months old. The other [Google et al's Android] is barely out of diapers, with one model down and the latest not exactly pulling up any tree roots yet.
The old 'build it and they will come' maxim only works if what you're selling is what people want. And that's the great unknown. Actually it's an unknowable unknown. But we do have some clues.
Apple has a loyal following and a great reputation for selling reliable software and hardware in one package. And that, as anyone who's bought a Nokia from Orange UK recently will know, is a much better solution. Oh, and women won't buy anything called 'Android'.
I have no idea what shape the Android market will be in in two years time, but I predict two things: With 40 different models, each with a vast array of different functionality, from any number of manufacturers, they have a compatibility nightmare on their hands, and absolutely no chance of creating any kind of buzz. Indeed, Microsoft have a better chance with whatever vision of ugliness they eventually spew out!
So, my fellow Macrumors posters, how about a wager?
I predict the true situation by 2012 will not be as Gartner suggest. I believe Apple will have their iPhone available all over the World with multiple carriers in each region, and that Apple's iPhone App, not Android will be in the number one spot. Indeed, I question whether the experiment will grow much beyond a techie wet dream.
I also predict that the Kindle will end up remaindered by the end of 2012. The only thing that might upset this is if they pull a colour screen and better battery out of the bag, and beat Apple's iPad on features and price. I don't see Amazon making that level of R&D investment, or being capable of leveraging that kind of buying power - ever.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
phantomsd
Jun 19, 10:51 PM
Haven't experienced a dropped call yet... then again, I barely use my minutes.
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
desigarms
Feb 11, 12:34 PM
I've been an iPhone for years, starting with the original iPhone then the 3G, then the 3GS. I firmly believed that I would be getting the next iPhone...until I had a chance to play with the Motorola Droid!
Let me explain. I'm not brand loyal won't go on a stupid forum to claim the iPhone is the best phone...because..I happen to own one. That is rather childish. I choose to own whatever i deem best for me. A few years ago it WAS the iPhone..now it IS the Droid.
Open source, yes could be hard for developers to develop Apps for different versions of hardware, but many developers are not focusing their Apps to the most popular phone (ie..Droid) so the Apps runs bug-free.
The UI interface and ability to customize is amazing!
External memory card allows for apps as well as data to be easily backed up. If an Iphone craps out...you may have your iTunes backup. What if your PC dies too (yes it happened to me) your data is lost! And to restore data, you need another iPhone to get AT your data. Not so with Droid, all your data is on your memory card!
Ability to install and load what you want. Wow, it feels so nice to be able to do what you want, with what's YOURS! No need to Apples approval, especially when it comes to 'moral' stuff. We're all adults, let us do what we want..even if it's porn.
Ability to run programs in the background. This is the single MOST important feature to me. Imagine reminders that SPEAK to me to buy Milk when I'm close to my grocery store!!!! Or to mail something when I'm close to the Post office!
Calendar that automatically synch with Google calendar. No extra fees for Mobile Me..and works absolutely perfectly! Unlike Mobile Me..which I had.
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
The list goes on and on!!!!
Please don't take this as IPhone bashing. It's a great phone, especially with iTunes and I can integrate into my car stereo. But the benchmark has been raised.
Just have an open mind, try other phones and you'll be impressed!!!
Let me explain. I'm not brand loyal won't go on a stupid forum to claim the iPhone is the best phone...because..I happen to own one. That is rather childish. I choose to own whatever i deem best for me. A few years ago it WAS the iPhone..now it IS the Droid.
Open source, yes could be hard for developers to develop Apps for different versions of hardware, but many developers are not focusing their Apps to the most popular phone (ie..Droid) so the Apps runs bug-free.
The UI interface and ability to customize is amazing!
External memory card allows for apps as well as data to be easily backed up. If an Iphone craps out...you may have your iTunes backup. What if your PC dies too (yes it happened to me) your data is lost! And to restore data, you need another iPhone to get AT your data. Not so with Droid, all your data is on your memory card!
Ability to install and load what you want. Wow, it feels so nice to be able to do what you want, with what's YOURS! No need to Apples approval, especially when it comes to 'moral' stuff. We're all adults, let us do what we want..even if it's porn.
Ability to run programs in the background. This is the single MOST important feature to me. Imagine reminders that SPEAK to me to buy Milk when I'm close to my grocery store!!!! Or to mail something when I'm close to the Post office!
Calendar that automatically synch with Google calendar. No extra fees for Mobile Me..and works absolutely perfectly! Unlike Mobile Me..which I had.
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
The list goes on and on!!!!
Please don't take this as IPhone bashing. It's a great phone, especially with iTunes and I can integrate into my car stereo. But the benchmark has been raised.
Just have an open mind, try other phones and you'll be impressed!!!
skunk
Apr 27, 03:18 PM
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
shawnce
Oct 26, 09:59 AM
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings.
Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.
XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.
8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
Tiger was the first big step in breaking the monolithic threading model of the BSD layer that was inherited from BSD (not a MACH issue). Leopard is going beyond that in a few key areas, for example to allow better efficiency on high-core count per socket systems.
XNU handles multiple cores just fine but improvements can always be made and they are being made.
8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
That is simply false. The schedular in Mac OS X handles 8 cores just fine... what Applications do with them in a different story.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:08 PM
And Fear.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
IMO, mainstream religion hasn't been about fear since the Middle/ Dark Ages.
Power and control? Sure, depending on your view of religion.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 09:00 AM
How exactly did AT&T have a walled garden, at least in the same sense as Apple? Normally I'm against that much control, but I don't think it bothers me as much because there are other options.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
I'd probably be less okay with Apple's garden if my choices were only Apple, and I've been a fan of/user of since OS 7. AT&T had less of a walled garden than Verizon. But the approach is more obvious if you look at phones being branded and carrier apps loaded (things the iPhone doesn't have done to it). Plus, in the case of Android phones, no side loading and tethering (which works by default in the OS) is turned off unless you pay (same as Apple).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 07:40 PM
Anyway I've had my fun here for now. I think it is settled that the G4 does poorly at this particular float test. I've done everything I can think of and gone though all sorts of variations of the loop trying to increase the IPC but I could never make significant headway on either the PC or the Mac.
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
That said, this test is essentialy a test where we do 400000000 double precision square roots which we don't even store and nothing else. There are no memory access, only very predictable branches. I have radically changed the loop and compiler flags and essentially nothing besides the sqrt() makes any difference.
I do not regard this test as important in the overall picture. It does not illustrate anything important to anyone, unless someone sits around doing square roots all day.
I might also add that designing a meaningful benchmark is very hard. I think SPEC is about as good as it gets, and yes the G4 looses in floats there too. :)
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 03:56 PM
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Langganan:
Posting Komentar (Atom)
LinkWithin
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar