840quadra
Sep 25, 11:21 PM
Here you go (http://www.podcastready.com/info.php?section=8&page=41).
Those bots are too dang quick!
You beat me to it!
Those bots are too dang quick!
You beat me to it!
sp86
Nov 11, 03:31 PM
FB places is great and so is the iPhone - But I use it only sparingly. Still one of those people who is increasingly scared of all this open technology
solvs
Sep 16, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by fourthtunz
Sounds like your not using X.2 or a New Mac.
Why do you waste your time on here?
Again, find a better deal than the New dual 867 on the Pc side, I'll buy it.
Daniel
I was speaking mostly of what others see when comparing. Believe it or not it, matters. True, numbers don't mean that much. It's all about the real-world performance. But you know what? Apple gets their butt kicked most of the time. You can quote benchmarks all you want, and for light stuff who cares? But for the hardcore stuff, Macs need to be faster and cheaper. That's all there is to it. They want to entice more Audio/Video/Image editing people, that's what they're gonna have to do.
Why is it anytime anyone critizes the Mac, they are automatically written off as trolls? Are you just going to accept whatever Apple does? They aren't perfect you know (though they do seem that way next to a PC). I've had many, many computers. Several of them were Apples. My 6400 was slow as molasess and froze all the time, but it got the job done (most of the time). I've since sold off or given away all but a custom built AMD running Windows 2000. I would have had a new G4 Tower, but my project lost funding and now I'm moving.
For the record, after I get settled in the new place, I was going to get an iBook and a Tower later (or a new PowerBook maybe). Why you ask? Because video editing in Windows sux. But it still bothers me that a very fast computer I built for a very small amount of money bests a $3,000 "SuperComputer". I'd rather use FCP (I've played with it, it's nice) instead of Premier. And OS X instead of Windows (any version, don't get me started on why XP sux so much).
But not all of us can always afford a Lexus when a Toyota will work just fine (notice I didn't say Kia or something. I didn't buy a Gateway).
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy with the 167 FSB, the large drive support, the dual CD Drives, etc. The Dual 1.25s look pretty zippy. But compare it to a PC (don't fool yourself, people do. Don't just tell them to buy a PC if they don't like it, cuz you know what, that's exactly what they do), it doesn't look so good. Apple is a business. WinTels are their competitors. We all have to recognize this. Apple has to keep up to stay alive in the long run.
I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I'm just so tired of PC weenies saying Macs are all style, no substance. And like many computer users who actually use their computers, I'm torn. Speed and price, or style and stability?
Only when Real-Time is really Real-Time, only then will I be truly happy.
Sounds like your not using X.2 or a New Mac.
Why do you waste your time on here?
Again, find a better deal than the New dual 867 on the Pc side, I'll buy it.
Daniel
I was speaking mostly of what others see when comparing. Believe it or not it, matters. True, numbers don't mean that much. It's all about the real-world performance. But you know what? Apple gets their butt kicked most of the time. You can quote benchmarks all you want, and for light stuff who cares? But for the hardcore stuff, Macs need to be faster and cheaper. That's all there is to it. They want to entice more Audio/Video/Image editing people, that's what they're gonna have to do.
Why is it anytime anyone critizes the Mac, they are automatically written off as trolls? Are you just going to accept whatever Apple does? They aren't perfect you know (though they do seem that way next to a PC). I've had many, many computers. Several of them were Apples. My 6400 was slow as molasess and froze all the time, but it got the job done (most of the time). I've since sold off or given away all but a custom built AMD running Windows 2000. I would have had a new G4 Tower, but my project lost funding and now I'm moving.
For the record, after I get settled in the new place, I was going to get an iBook and a Tower later (or a new PowerBook maybe). Why you ask? Because video editing in Windows sux. But it still bothers me that a very fast computer I built for a very small amount of money bests a $3,000 "SuperComputer". I'd rather use FCP (I've played with it, it's nice) instead of Premier. And OS X instead of Windows (any version, don't get me started on why XP sux so much).
But not all of us can always afford a Lexus when a Toyota will work just fine (notice I didn't say Kia or something. I didn't buy a Gateway).
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy with the 167 FSB, the large drive support, the dual CD Drives, etc. The Dual 1.25s look pretty zippy. But compare it to a PC (don't fool yourself, people do. Don't just tell them to buy a PC if they don't like it, cuz you know what, that's exactly what they do), it doesn't look so good. Apple is a business. WinTels are their competitors. We all have to recognize this. Apple has to keep up to stay alive in the long run.
I'd rather have a Mac, but don't fool yourself. You can build a really nice PC for less than $2,000 (with plenty of basic software that helps you crash Windows even faster) that blows the $3,000+ machines out of the water. You get a nice, out of the box experiance with OS X.2, but is it worth it for the higher price and slower performance. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I'm just so tired of PC weenies saying Macs are all style, no substance. And like many computer users who actually use their computers, I'm torn. Speed and price, or style and stability?
Only when Real-Time is really Real-Time, only then will I be truly happy.
troop231
Apr 5, 10:53 AM
I don't think apple would go 128gb now.. There launching cloud soon, which is the future.
How is "cloud" the future if bandwidth is still limited and not available everywhere? Cloud = server, This rebranding needs to stop.
How is "cloud" the future if bandwidth is still limited and not available everywhere? Cloud = server, This rebranding needs to stop.
monaarts
Apr 5, 08:33 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Capacitive home button sounds believable as apple has gone away with buttons on the MacBooks trackpad. Apple likes touch, not clicking. Lol
Capacitive home button sounds believable as apple has gone away with buttons on the MacBooks trackpad. Apple likes touch, not clicking. Lol
satcomer
Apr 2, 04:47 PM
In the art of war, 'keep you friends close, and you enemies closer'!
That is what it looks like to me also.
That is what it looks like to me also.
orangephoto
Sep 20, 10:13 AM
ok the first one is all i needed
the smc said it was already up
now if they would only fix the airport issues...
i hate internet sharing with my powerbook
the smc said it was already up
now if they would only fix the airport issues...
i hate internet sharing with my powerbook
Gasu E.
Mar 25, 09:20 AM
i bet they had people there with MBA's from good schools running financial what if's and telling management to avoid digital because they will make less money due to not selling the film or anything other than the camera
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
longofest
Nov 10, 01:37 PM
RFID is insecure. The british RFID passports have been cracked within less than 48 hours, the German test ones in less than a day. I wouldn't trust RFID for any important and sensible information like payment services. It's fine for stuff like tracking packages or my skiing card - but that's it.
RFID in passports is kind of another ball of wax. One of the issues with so-called e-Passports is that they store all of the information on the RFID tag (i.e. your personal information) rather than just a reference number to a database. This is so you don't have different countries accessing other countries' databases. However, the level of encryption used on these passports is very weak, so all of that data on the tag is potentially vulnerable.
It is generally considered best practice to put only reference numbers to a database on RFID tags. That way if you skim the tag all you have is jibberish without the accompanying database info.
Don't blame the technology... blame the incorrect use of the technology. I don't see how the above examples of Apple's potential usage could be a serious privacy threat like the passports are.
RFID in passports is kind of another ball of wax. One of the issues with so-called e-Passports is that they store all of the information on the RFID tag (i.e. your personal information) rather than just a reference number to a database. This is so you don't have different countries accessing other countries' databases. However, the level of encryption used on these passports is very weak, so all of that data on the tag is potentially vulnerable.
It is generally considered best practice to put only reference numbers to a database on RFID tags. That way if you skim the tag all you have is jibberish without the accompanying database info.
Don't blame the technology... blame the incorrect use of the technology. I don't see how the above examples of Apple's potential usage could be a serious privacy threat like the passports are.
Dooger
Mar 24, 01:33 PM
Steve doesn't own the company,the stock holders do.
Those"shock and awe merchants"are people who volunteered to risk their lives to defend their country.
You're right, it's the stock holders calling the shots.
And sorry to sound churlish, but how exactly is invading a country thousands of miles from your own an act of defence?
Those"shock and awe merchants"are people who volunteered to risk their lives to defend their country.
You're right, it's the stock holders calling the shots.
And sorry to sound churlish, but how exactly is invading a country thousands of miles from your own an act of defence?
blueroom
Apr 29, 12:46 PM
Take it back to where you bought it.
eshroom
Dec 2, 10:21 AM
It's always depressing to see someone else succeed at such an obvious idea. Maybe next time...
The idea is nothing. The kid obviously put time and effort into finding a decent supplier at a low price, marketing, web development. Hats off to him.
If you think you can develop a good idea then go ahead and try, there's loads here: www.ideaaday.org (http://ideaaday.org/)
Do me a favour and PM me so I can track your progress.
The idea is nothing. The kid obviously put time and effort into finding a decent supplier at a low price, marketing, web development. Hats off to him.
If you think you can develop a good idea then go ahead and try, there's loads here: www.ideaaday.org (http://ideaaday.org/)
Do me a favour and PM me so I can track your progress.
lincolntran
Jun 29, 02:55 PM
And this is just the front�
:eek: :o
The seldom used optical drive is on the back. All the useful stuff is on the front. :D
Rocketman
You are totally correct!
;) :cool:
:eek: :o
The seldom used optical drive is on the back. All the useful stuff is on the front. :D
Rocketman
You are totally correct!
;) :cool:
mikeapple
Apr 5, 09:32 AM
WOW... who could of possible saw this coming... iPad 2 given title for best tablet... SHOCKER:rolleyes:
4JNA
Apr 17, 11:58 PM
Ultimately where does all this research go? Who is benefitting from it all? I can't help but think that all this research will just enable some multi-billion dollar drug company to come up with some pill that they can patent and make billions of more dollars. I tried reading the faqs of Folding@home, but it does not really say where all this research is going. I am sure the scientists mean well with their research, but ultimately they will not be the ones creating the drugs to cure these diseases. Drug companies will be doing that, and they are strictly profit oriented.
per the FAQ on the F@H page...
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them?
"Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's - Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles that analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
it's open source science. everyone participates, everyone wins.
2) My electricity prices are going up by about 10% so I really don't like the idea of my iMac running 24-7 eating up electricity, and adding to the wear and tear of my system. I'm not sure what the monthly cost would be running Folding@home, but I'm sure it adds up.
the cost of gasoline is up also, but i still drive my paper/plastic/glass to the city recycle point to keep it out of a landfill. i guess i don't get the point of the question. if you can afford the small increase in cost due to additional electrical usage, then fold. if not, don't.
no idea which system you have, but a quick guesstimate of a current imac running folding with the screen set to turn off when not being used would be around 100-120w, so like leaving a light bulb on. well, an old school incandescent bulb... you do have all LED and CFLs since you worry about electric rates, right?
if i had only an imac and a desire to fold, i'd leave the imac alone and build a cheap pc system to fold with. no wear and tear, better results, lower cost. just my 2 cents.
per the FAQ on the F@H page...
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them?
"Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's - Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles that analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
it's open source science. everyone participates, everyone wins.
2) My electricity prices are going up by about 10% so I really don't like the idea of my iMac running 24-7 eating up electricity, and adding to the wear and tear of my system. I'm not sure what the monthly cost would be running Folding@home, but I'm sure it adds up.
the cost of gasoline is up also, but i still drive my paper/plastic/glass to the city recycle point to keep it out of a landfill. i guess i don't get the point of the question. if you can afford the small increase in cost due to additional electrical usage, then fold. if not, don't.
no idea which system you have, but a quick guesstimate of a current imac running folding with the screen set to turn off when not being used would be around 100-120w, so like leaving a light bulb on. well, an old school incandescent bulb... you do have all LED and CFLs since you worry about electric rates, right?
if i had only an imac and a desire to fold, i'd leave the imac alone and build a cheap pc system to fold with. no wear and tear, better results, lower cost. just my 2 cents.
ethical
Dec 16, 04:46 PM
It's not about making Sony lose out. Most of the people buying the single realise that either way, Sony benefits. Yes, Cowell will benefit slightly as he has shares in Sony, but he won't benefit nearly as much as he would if X Factor was number 1. I think it's just that people are fed up of X Factor dominating the charts year after year, and they want to see something new. Myself, I don't mind the RATM song, yes if it was my choice I'd have picked another, but anything is better than the cheesy manufactured pop that comes from Reality TV singing competitions.
You're missing the point. Firstly, like I said before, the Christmas no.1 is decided by what's most popular at the time! If that's X-Factor then so be it. People won't buy it if they don't like it or don't care! They buy it to support the artist, or because they do like it (exactly the same reasons that people buy any artist's music). If the song came out in the middle of August I'm willing to bet it would get similar results (minus the obvious increase in sales of all artists due to xMas presents etc.).
I don't understand why we are trying to fake the Christmas no.1! Simon Cowell is an excellent business man and he runs a very successful record label. I honestly just think you're all bitter and jealous!
You're missing the point. Firstly, like I said before, the Christmas no.1 is decided by what's most popular at the time! If that's X-Factor then so be it. People won't buy it if they don't like it or don't care! They buy it to support the artist, or because they do like it (exactly the same reasons that people buy any artist's music). If the song came out in the middle of August I'm willing to bet it would get similar results (minus the obvious increase in sales of all artists due to xMas presents etc.).
I don't understand why we are trying to fake the Christmas no.1! Simon Cowell is an excellent business man and he runs a very successful record label. I honestly just think you're all bitter and jealous!
digitalbiker
Oct 12, 11:07 AM
OSX alone is worth spending 10 grand on a laptop.
Monica Lewinsky #39;Still In Love
Bill Clinton and Monica
akac
Apr 17, 02:41 PM
No. They are worse than the IBM caricature that they painted back in 1984.
The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.
They can also produce malware (as they have) as easily. And Android is much harder to develop for. And the sales are 1/100th of the same app on iPhone.
We develop on nearly every mobile platform and the iPhone is the best for us. Not just because its fun to develop on, the APIs are great, the sales are great, but because frankly the entire thing is just a step above every other app store, platform, and company we've worked with in the last 10 years of the mobile space.
When users try to get in the midst of what developers have to deal with, they only get a very filtered view that does not encapsulate the true view.
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
I strongly doubt it. As a mobile developer for 10 years I've got a pretty good handle of how these markets work and have been right most of the time. Android has way more major issues for devs and users to deal with than Apple. Its just that Apple's gets the press.
We develop for Android. I like Android compared to WinMobile. I like WebOS compared to WinMobile. But none of them compare to how much all of my engineers prefer developing on iPhone. And using the iPhone.
The biggest reason why Android will not overtake the iPhone in app sales is that the iPhone is consistent in its OS revisions. Android's open-ness which is a strength is also its biggest weakness. As a developer its a small nightmare to test and develop for it because of so many unknowns.
One day there may be more Android phones sold than iPhones, but app sales on the iPhone is still going to blow Android out the water.
Look at Symbian and Windows Mobile. For years Windows Mobile's smartphone software outsold their Pocket PC 10-1, yet app sales were reversed with the Pocket PC users buying software 10-1 for smartphone. Symbian app sales are nearly non-existent yet it blows every current Smartphone out of the water for unit sales.
Android's unit sales are 60k a day according to Google, yet software sales relative to iPhone shows that Android users simply don't buy apps at the same rate the iPhone users do.
The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.
They can also produce malware (as they have) as easily. And Android is much harder to develop for. And the sales are 1/100th of the same app on iPhone.
We develop on nearly every mobile platform and the iPhone is the best for us. Not just because its fun to develop on, the APIs are great, the sales are great, but because frankly the entire thing is just a step above every other app store, platform, and company we've worked with in the last 10 years of the mobile space.
When users try to get in the midst of what developers have to deal with, they only get a very filtered view that does not encapsulate the true view.
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
I strongly doubt it. As a mobile developer for 10 years I've got a pretty good handle of how these markets work and have been right most of the time. Android has way more major issues for devs and users to deal with than Apple. Its just that Apple's gets the press.
We develop for Android. I like Android compared to WinMobile. I like WebOS compared to WinMobile. But none of them compare to how much all of my engineers prefer developing on iPhone. And using the iPhone.
The biggest reason why Android will not overtake the iPhone in app sales is that the iPhone is consistent in its OS revisions. Android's open-ness which is a strength is also its biggest weakness. As a developer its a small nightmare to test and develop for it because of so many unknowns.
One day there may be more Android phones sold than iPhones, but app sales on the iPhone is still going to blow Android out the water.
Look at Symbian and Windows Mobile. For years Windows Mobile's smartphone software outsold their Pocket PC 10-1, yet app sales were reversed with the Pocket PC users buying software 10-1 for smartphone. Symbian app sales are nearly non-existent yet it blows every current Smartphone out of the water for unit sales.
Android's unit sales are 60k a day according to Google, yet software sales relative to iPhone shows that Android users simply don't buy apps at the same rate the iPhone users do.
Maxx Power
Nov 12, 11:44 AM
Soon to come from rogue marketing, a parody: "Get A Life"
Then viral marketing from apple: "Get i-Life"
Then viral marketing from apple: "Get i-Life"
akatsuki
Apr 5, 07:16 PM
Frankly Apple should just commit to Thunderbolt and put those ports right on there. There is really no need for any other port.
Mr. Gates
Apr 5, 11:53 AM
Can't they just improve the button itself?
I know this is is a prototype so I'm now worried about this nonsense, but it does bring up an important issue.
The button on the iOS devices has never been updated or improved.
Its too small, it is easily damaged, and the clicking action is pretty weak.
There is a lot of room for improvement
I know this is is a prototype so I'm now worried about this nonsense, but it does bring up an important issue.
The button on the iOS devices has never been updated or improved.
Its too small, it is easily damaged, and the clicking action is pretty weak.
There is a lot of room for improvement
whooleytoo
Jun 11, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by markjs
I do audio and video editing on my PC, I can't think of anything a Mac can do my computer can't (and I'll wager I'll do anything cheaper, and being poor that's a serious consideration to me), and what is the big draw to the Mac. I realize this isn't the best forum for a two sided debate, but I am thowing it out there anyway.
I do audio and video editing on my PC, I can't think of anything a Mac can do my computer can't (and I'll wager I'll do anything cheaper, and being poor that's a serious consideration to me), and what is the big draw to the Mac. I realize this isn't the best forum for a two sided debate, but I am thowing it out there anyway.
Snowy_River
Nov 14, 01:25 PM
Moved to another thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3054204&posted=1#post3054204)
RogueLdr
Sep 19, 04:15 PM
It's a shame, however, that Apple will probably never link to this page due to the fact that they are not #1 on the list. The similiarity in performance of the G4 system and the Pentium system speaks highly of the efficiency of the G4 processor.
RL
RL
0 comments:
Post a Comment