nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Dunno about the asm files without delving deeper.
But imagine you've copied the benchmark code to mr2.c - then try
gcc -O2 -funroll-all-loops -o mr2 mr2.c
the -O2 and -funroll-all-loops are optimisation flags. The -o mr2 says to create an output file called mr2. GCC will work out this isn't an object file and manage the linking for you. The mr2.c on the end specifies the input file.
More?
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Dunno about the asm files without delving deeper.
But imagine you've copied the benchmark code to mr2.c - then try
gcc -O2 -funroll-all-loops -o mr2 mr2.c
the -O2 and -funroll-all-loops are optimisation flags. The -o mr2 says to create an output file called mr2. GCC will work out this isn't an object file and manage the linking for you. The mr2.c on the end specifies the input file.
More?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 06:38 PM
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know).
Ah, the academic exercise. Yes. Love it.
But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
Nope, sorry, no fun "regardless", for others have a dim view of any speculation outside their own pre-conceived notions.
Ah, the academic exercise. Yes. Love it.
But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
Nope, sorry, no fun "regardless", for others have a dim view of any speculation outside their own pre-conceived notions.
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:22 AM
Please point that out in the contract, know it all.
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
Guess what, it isn't there.
Go look up the word Unlimited in the dictionary. Internalize and understand it. Come back here when you're done. Then come into a court room. Id like to sit back watch you (as I will eventually be watching AT&T) dance around the clear and concise definition of the word.
I've engaged in long, drawn out discussions with my legal pals about this very issue for several years, and they all agree it would completely impossible for AT&T to get out of court unscathed over this word "Unlimited"
Most of you people don't grasp the significance of the word in this case, which is not at all surprising given the crowd. (young and/or naive).
Most also think that because AT&T includes fine print in a contract, they can enforce it however they wish...which of course is a laughable fantasy to anyone who has sat through the first day of contract law.
Go look up the words: entitlement, spoiled, ignorance and unfounded :)
btrav13
Jun 12, 10:02 AM
However, you are unfortunately stuck in the position that if you buy the device, you are buying ATT service. As long as this continues to happen, then Apple really doesn't have any incentive to move it to other carriers. I mean, technically they do, but if there are service complaints, yet the very same people who complain still continue to purchase the new one ever year, then that's not sending a very strong message, in my opinion.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:56 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
Silencio
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.
Moyank24
Mar 11, 02:31 AM
As of 0730 GMT, Philippines is now under alert level 2. Its now 0830 GMT. Bracing for tsunami in the next hour.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
http://ndcc.gov.ph/attachments/article/165/NDRRMC%20Advisory%20Tsunami%20Bulletin%20No.%202,%2011March2011,%203PM.pdf
Oh wow. Hopefully that will give people anywhere near the shores time to reach higher ground.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 08:07 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:49 AM
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
benixau
Oct 10, 11:29 AM
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:10 PM
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
~Shard~
Nov 1, 01:20 PM
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
Evidently you haven't read the myriad of posts in this thread regarding multi-threaded workflows... :rolleyes: :cool:
Evidently you haven't read the myriad of posts in this thread regarding multi-threaded workflows... :rolleyes: :cool:
robeddie
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
Not having seen FCPX first hand I will completely withhold judgement on the app until I do.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
solafide
Sep 12, 07:48 PM
I think this will be a great first step for Apple. Long term, I'd like to be able archive all my DVDs and play them through iTunes, just as I have done with my CDs. In the mid to long term, this would mean that Apple would have to work out a deal with a DRM solution with the content owners that would allow for a DVD (obviously this would not work with my currently owned DVDs) to be stored on a computer - authenticating back to the content owner's server, for example.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
sisyphus
Sep 25, 11:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Gurutech
Jul 12, 01:12 PM
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Ericatomars
Oct 7, 12:27 PM
yeah that they were also sure that chicago would get the olympics! It didnt happen...
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
Once android gets a grip on apple and its actually at the point where they could have that chance Apple will change the game! Thats just how it goes... There is a reason why so many people stand behind Apple's products....
jlc1978
Mar 18, 07:03 AM
Some users received the above SMS message with a followup email explaining tethering and warning them that tethering will be enabled if they continue to use that feature.TiPb speculates (http://www.tipb.com/2011/03/18/att-cracking-jailbroken-mywi-users/) on how they are detecting unauthorized tethering:
Article Link: AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
Hmm - that would be a change in your contract and might just allow you to get out of it with no termination fee - just as any the change would. Unless hay could prove you violated the TOS they can't unilaterally change it and force you to accept it; especially when they change the price.
Article Link: AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
Hmm - that would be a change in your contract and might just allow you to get out of it with no termination fee - just as any the change would. Unless hay could prove you violated the TOS they can't unilaterally change it and force you to accept it; especially when they change the price.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:14 AM
Wait, you have evidence that AT&T has zero evidence?
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
Oh, is that in the contract too? Is that legal? NOPE.
All it would take is one class action lawsuit to destroy everything this company has done for 5 years.
Didn't think so.
For all you know, they're doing the same deep-packet inspections on their data network that wired broadband providers have been doing for years.
Oh, is that in the contract too? Is that legal? NOPE.
All it would take is one class action lawsuit to destroy everything this company has done for 5 years.