javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
jegbook
Apr 12, 04:06 PM
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Your comment about "suffering with 7 all day" is surprising to me. I don't know if I've seen Windows 7 experience a full OS crash. And I've been toying with Win 7 since it was in beta.
Sure, it ain't perfect, but I find Win 7 pretty darn efficient overall. I haven't encountered any OS related issues with 7 yet. Application quirks, sure, but not really any OS problems.
I'd say OS X and Win 7 are much more comparable than Vista or XP.
Again, it comes down mostly to what you need a computer to do.
Cheers, all.
jaguarx
Oct 31, 02:24 AM
I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.
peharri
Sep 23, 10:25 AM
Perhaps we've just been exposed to different sources of info. I viewed the sept 12 presentation in its entirety, and have read virtually all the reports and comments on macrumors, appleinsider, think secret, engadget, the wall street journal, and maccentral, among others. It was disney chief bob iger who was quoted saying iTV had a hard drive; that was generally interpreted (except by maccentral, which took the statement literally) to mean it had some sort of storage, be it flash or a small HD, and that it would be for buffering/caching to allow streaming of huge files at relatively slow (for the purpose) wireless speeds.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
I've read absolutely everything I can too and I have to disagree with you still.
It makes absolutely no sense for Bob Iger to have been told there's "some sort of storage" if this isn't storage in any conventional sense. Storage to a layman means somewhere where you store things, not something transitory used by the machine in a way you can't fathom. So, we have two factors here:
First - Bob's been talking about a hard disk. That absolutely doesn't point at a cache, it's too expensive to be a cache.
Second - Even if Bob got the technology wrong, he's been told the machine has "storage". That's not a term you generally use to mean "transitory storage for temporary objects".
The suggestion Bob's talking about a cache is being made, in my view, because people know it'll need some sort of caching to overcome 802.11/etc temporary bandwidth issues (Hmm. Kind of. You guys do know we're talking about way less bandwidth requirements than a DVD right - and that a DVD-formatted MPEG2 will transmit realtime on an 802.11g link? What's more, for 99% of Internet users, their DSL connection has less bandwidth than their wireless link, even if they're on the other side of the house with someone else's WAN in range and on the same channel. Yes, 802.11 suffers drop-outs, but we're talking about needing seconds worth of video effected, not hours) As such, you're trying to find evidence that it'll deal with caching.
YOU DON'T NEED TO. A few megabytes of RAM is enough to ensure smooth playback will happen. This is a non-problem. Everyone who's going this route is putting way too much thought into designing a solution to something that isn't hard to solve.
Nonetheless, because it's an "issue", everything is being interpreted in that light. If there's "storage", it must be because of caching! Well, in my opinion, if there's storage, it's almost certainly to do with storage. You don't need it for caching.
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with Bob Iger where the issue of flash or hard disk space for caching content to avoid 802.11 issues would come up, and where the word "storage" would be used purely in that context. It's hard. I don't see them talking about caches to Iger. It makes no sense. They might just as well talk about DCT transforms or the Quicktime API.
I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. But i don't think i am. Let's continue reading the reports and revisit this subject here in a day or two.
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong too. I'm certainly less sure of it than I am of the iPhone rumours being bunk.
Regardless of the truth, I have to say the iTV makes little sense unless, regardless of whether it contains a hard disk or not, it can stream content directly from the iTS. Without the possibility of being used as a computer-less media hub, it becomes an overly expensive and complicated solution for what could more easily be done by making a bolt-on similar to that awful TubePort concept.
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.) I can see why Apple would make that. I can see why it would take a $300 machine to do that and make it practical. I see the importance of the iTS and the potential dangers to it as the cellphone displaces the iPod, and Apple's need to shore it up. I can see studio executives "not getting it" with online movies if those movies can only be seen on laptops, PCs, and iPods.
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
takao
Mar 15, 07:30 AM
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
FX120
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
maclaptop
Apr 28, 08:06 AM
The real facts are its only a report. The bottom line is Apple is stronger than ever and doing a great job.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
That's all that matters to me.
One look at the stock price reminds me of how fortunate I was to get in when shares were selling for under $20.00
Its been a good ride.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 06:10 PM
What is a "devout atheist"? :confused:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:23 AM
There's a difference between a PC (machine that gives you the ability to work) and a communication / entertainment device.
We are currently witnessing the melding of the two, with the mobile side emerging as the favoured platform.
Yes, you'll see content creation on tablet and pad devices. It's inevitable as they get more powerful and easier to use.
We are currently witnessing the melding of the two, with the mobile side emerging as the favoured platform.
Yes, you'll see content creation on tablet and pad devices. It's inevitable as they get more powerful and easier to use.
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 08:08 PM
Hi WanaPBnow,
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm an ex-pat!
You're right. Apple needs to 'kick-start' the Power PC. I hope the IBM rumours are true and we'll see a G5 sometime next year that can really compete with Intel/AMD.
If the speed/cost ratio continues to widen considerably over the next 12 months Apple might lose a number of loyalists.
celo48
May 5, 10:43 PM
I am not a big fan of AT&T either but how come T-Mobile does better than AT&T , I do not know.
AT&T is not THAT bad. I know it is better than T-Mobile at least.
AT&T is not THAT bad. I know it is better than T-Mobile at least.
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
javajedi
Oct 8, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
I agree with you 110% all the way! Like I was saying earlier, my XP machine has never BSOD'd me. I used to have a shirt a long time ago that said, Macintosh 89' = Windows 95'. Now longer can I make this argument. Also very good point about the components.
Bewarned, ppl are going to flame us, but I don't care. I think you and I are being completely honost. Many of us here really want to see Apple lead the pack again in hardware.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
I agree with you 110% all the way! Like I was saying earlier, my XP machine has never BSOD'd me. I used to have a shirt a long time ago that said, Macintosh 89' = Windows 95'. Now longer can I make this argument. Also very good point about the components.
Bewarned, ppl are going to flame us, but I don't care. I think you and I are being completely honost. Many of us here really want to see Apple lead the pack again in hardware.
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
idea_hamster
May 2, 08:56 AM
So what does this do? What's the effect of the payload?
Blipp
Apr 12, 11:26 AM
Boy, I've read the first few pages of this thread and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that most people posting differences on here between Windows/OSX simply don't know how or haven't learned yet how to fully use OS X. The majority of complaints seem to simply be people who don't know the key commands to do what they're blaming OS X for lacking. If something is that disruptive to your workflow why aren't you guys doing the minimal amount of research it would take to solve the issue?
takao
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
whatever
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
slu
Oct 7, 02:55 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 03:21 PM
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
I've found that most people don't care as much about their country as people believe (or say they do). They and their families well being come first above all else in almost ALL cases of people. They only care about the "country" when it benefits them in a way that they know (or are used to).
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures. How far...is the big question only time will answer.
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity". Whether you can say this is truly still "the land of opportunity" is still arguable...heck, maybe it's actually China like some ppl believe. But it's a wonder because if you follow some of the highest tech research and developments (often military in nature), the Ph.D.s that are involved usually have CHINESE names! Go figure... ;)
I've found that most people don't care as much about their country as people believe (or say they do). They and their families well being come first above all else in almost ALL cases of people. They only care about the "country" when it benefits them in a way that they know (or are used to).
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures. How far...is the big question only time will answer.
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity". Whether you can say this is truly still "the land of opportunity" is still arguable...heck, maybe it's actually China like some ppl believe. But it's a wonder because if you follow some of the highest tech research and developments (often military in nature), the Ph.D.s that are involved usually have CHINESE names! Go figure... ;)