ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:14 PM
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
840quadra
Apr 29, 10:48 PM
First off, attitude aside, my calling the iPod's overall populairity a Fad is personal opinion, not a fact. Don't take it so personally. ;)
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
There are a few other sites, blogs, people (do a twitter search ;) ) that feel the same way as I do. It is a Personal feeling, and so are all my responses to your points from which I am trying to explain my viewpoint on this subject, or debate.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
Yep the music player is called iPod, just like on the iPhone the Touch is based off of. User interface is totally different, so is the way it behaves as compared to a true classic 'iPod'.
Remember using an old iPod? When you go out of the music player (while music is playing) to do something else, in most cases it returned to the music player after a period of time had gone by. If the screen went to sleep, simply take it out of Hold (if you put it in that), or touch the clickwheel, and you were back into the music player. Neither the touch, or the iPhone behave like this, the Music player is just an other Application among many, and no longer the star.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
I have not seen a Dictionary definition of 'fad' with an established time limit. If you have one from a reputable dictionary, please share it.
Remember, the iPod was an item to be worn, often in public, and most people (especially kids, and teens) were proud to display them either by holding them, wearing white headphones, or placing them visibly on desks or tables were they could be seen using them.
Apple totally knew this, it is why they brought the Mini, Nano, and Black iPod to market, because they realized people saw iPods as a Fashion item.
Items of Fashion are common among fads, and even though people didn't wear an iPod, for a period of time it was definitely "in" to be seen with one, especially the latest model to come out.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
Apple doesn't break down sales of individual models in most cases, so it is hard to say exactly when sales of regular (non Touch) iPods started to fall off.
Regardless, the masses of people don't want to carry around devices that are primarily music players anymore, they want to carry around pocketable multipurpose devices.
Even though they existed before the iPhone, these multipurpose devices didn't really take off until the iPhone / iPod touch went to market. Prior to the iPhone there were countless, Smartphones, feature phones, and PDAs. Many of these sold for less than some iPod models (especially Palm PDAs, and some feature phones) but none sold like the iPod. The iPod was the thing to have.
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
Agreed, There were many MP3 players before, during, and after the heyday of the iPod. Many were cheaper, similar in ease of use, higher in features, and had better audio quality than the iPod. But, they weren't as cool, they weren't the iPod, people wanted the iPod because it's the thing to have.
The Popular item that everyone wants, or want's to be seen with is often what gives it a fad status.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
I understand your viewpoints, respect your opinion, and appreciate your time in sharing them. I can totally see and respect why people wouldn't see the iPod as being either a fad, or part of one. I just look at it a bit differently.
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
When you learn to be a constructive participant of a conversation, as opposed to just snide, I would be more than happy to discuss my viewpoints with you.
Cheers,
GGJstudios
Apr 13, 03:16 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned.
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
Val Widescreen Wallpaper for
Best Wallpapers | Nature
wallpaper desktop nature.
River Nature HD Wallpapers
Hd Wallpapers Widescreen
nature wallpapers hd
hd wallpaper nature widescreen
HDTV Widescreen Wallpapers
HD Nature Widescreen Wallpaper (Set)
50 Japanese Nature Wallpaper
Nature HD Wallpaper Nature
Nature+wallpaper+hd+2011
hd 1080p wallpapers
Nature walks hd wallpaper
Widescreen Wallpapers:
Connecting other hard drives. I'm only able to read from most (windows) drives.
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
ariza910
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
Wasnt Steve Jobs demo of the Incredibles movie through iTV in HD?
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
einmusiker
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they can prove people are doing unauthorized tethering. You won't be seeing it so they really have nothing to charge you for. All we've heard so far is speculation and nothing more
monster620ie
Apr 13, 05:48 AM
I am upgrading from fcs3 to this.
balamw
Apr 10, 08:20 PM
I'm not sure sure what you mean when you say "for the things it is good at." What do you mean? What things?
They've been all over this thread, but you've been focused on the negatives.
Mac hardware: Multi-touch gestures. Yes, some PCs have "multi-touch" trackpads, but none are as smooth (literally and operationally) as that on a MacBook. Macs generally value quietness. This is a plus for anyone who works with audio or requires concentration. Minimal fan noise and such. Magsafe. It's a dumb little thing, but I've dumped my laptop plenty of times with the power cord before. It's nice to know I have some protection and it's saved me many times. You pretty much have to try a unibody machine to feel how different they feel than a typical plastic OEM box. Whether it's in your bag, on your lap or on your desk they feel solid with no little pieces to break and fall off. While YMMV, the glass over the display has been great for me with kids who love to poke at the screen. A micro fiber cloth brings it back to mint condition. I've also gotten so used to the darn MBP keyboard that I had to get one for my iMac and also use an Apple KB on my desktop PC. (Sad I know).
OS X: Display PDF is built in. This allows all apps to generate PDFs trivially, WYSIWYG works far better than on Windows and the Preview.app tool can edit PDFs in ways that require tons of software on a PC. Expose. Spaces. Xcode. Each of these has a near equivalent on the PC, but for many of us the advantage is to OS X's implementation. If you want to develop iOS apps, you should really do that on a Mac. Time Machine. Not perfect, but really nice for unattended wireless backup. Unix inside. For those of us who are technical at any level or who also appreciate Linux it's nice to be able to have a fully functional Unix environment just under the surface. iTunes works 100% better under OS X than the Windows port. For those of use with large libraries that matters. System wide scripting. Most Mac OS X apps can be scripted using Applescript or automated using Automator.. It's far simpler and more pervasive than under Windows.
The whole package. Battery life. Mac laptops running OS X tend to last a whole lot longer than their Windows counterparts. Power management just works. (I've had tons of problems with start up, sleep, wake, hibernate, shut down, etc... in Windows for years, and I see it hasn't improved with my wife's one year old Lenovo from work). I've also had PC notebook batteries that won't even last a year, but have never had to replace a battery in any of my Macs.
That's just off the top of my head and what is important to me.
If you gave it a chance you might find something that is important to you. If you don't you certainly won't.
B
They've been all over this thread, but you've been focused on the negatives.
Mac hardware: Multi-touch gestures. Yes, some PCs have "multi-touch" trackpads, but none are as smooth (literally and operationally) as that on a MacBook. Macs generally value quietness. This is a plus for anyone who works with audio or requires concentration. Minimal fan noise and such. Magsafe. It's a dumb little thing, but I've dumped my laptop plenty of times with the power cord before. It's nice to know I have some protection and it's saved me many times. You pretty much have to try a unibody machine to feel how different they feel than a typical plastic OEM box. Whether it's in your bag, on your lap or on your desk they feel solid with no little pieces to break and fall off. While YMMV, the glass over the display has been great for me with kids who love to poke at the screen. A micro fiber cloth brings it back to mint condition. I've also gotten so used to the darn MBP keyboard that I had to get one for my iMac and also use an Apple KB on my desktop PC. (Sad I know).
OS X: Display PDF is built in. This allows all apps to generate PDFs trivially, WYSIWYG works far better than on Windows and the Preview.app tool can edit PDFs in ways that require tons of software on a PC. Expose. Spaces. Xcode. Each of these has a near equivalent on the PC, but for many of us the advantage is to OS X's implementation. If you want to develop iOS apps, you should really do that on a Mac. Time Machine. Not perfect, but really nice for unattended wireless backup. Unix inside. For those of us who are technical at any level or who also appreciate Linux it's nice to be able to have a fully functional Unix environment just under the surface. iTunes works 100% better under OS X than the Windows port. For those of use with large libraries that matters. System wide scripting. Most Mac OS X apps can be scripted using Applescript or automated using Automator.. It's far simpler and more pervasive than under Windows.
The whole package. Battery life. Mac laptops running OS X tend to last a whole lot longer than their Windows counterparts. Power management just works. (I've had tons of problems with start up, sleep, wake, hibernate, shut down, etc... in Windows for years, and I see it hasn't improved with my wife's one year old Lenovo from work). I've also had PC notebook batteries that won't even last a year, but have never had to replace a battery in any of my Macs.
That's just off the top of my head and what is important to me.
If you gave it a chance you might find something that is important to you. If you don't you certainly won't.
B
ddtlm
Oct 11, 01:45 AM
javajedi:
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
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
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
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:37 PM
Ah the decennial malware is here early.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:36 AM
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
In my opinion Lego Harry Potter on the iPad was the definitive version on any platform, and superb on through the 2 onto the big screen.
In my opinion Lego Harry Potter on the iPad was the definitive version on any platform, and superb on through the 2 onto the big screen.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
deconai
Aug 29, 04:06 PM
And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
diamond.g
Apr 21, 09:52 AM
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC is a valid example for #3. If Android hadn't came along, there was a pretty good chance HTC would have gone away.
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC is a valid example for #3. If Android hadn't came along, there was a pretty good chance HTC would have gone away.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:37 PM
I'm sure there are many, many more.
Acceptable collateral damage for Big Business.
I'm sure none of the big-wigs had any problems.
Acceptable collateral damage for Big Business.
I'm sure none of the big-wigs had any problems.
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:39 PM
Firstly, let me say I'm against DRM if it restricts me using my own music I've paid for, but equally I see why artists don't want me uploading my iTunes Library to Gnutella.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
Now, this "I do it to help Linux" excuse, it's rubbish. I've no objection to people choosing Linux (I use it on several servers) but to then moan it can't do xyz is crazy. If you need to watch DVDs, access iTunes, play The Sims, use Word etc then you should be running an OS that can do those things not by hacking support by illegal means. I understand the frustration of not being supported, but again it was by choice, lobby Apple to do Linux iTunes.
I applaud this software for giving me my usage rights back, but lets not make DVD Jon a hero of Linux, he just likes beating the system.
takao
Mar 14, 12:21 PM
At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic: like for certain swiss/german/european power plants where if one reactors cooling fails, the emergency generators are actually to be powered by the _other_ nuclear reactors on site ...
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:17 PM
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
diamornte
Apr 13, 03:46 AM
Is it any coincidence that the "so-called" Pros in this discussion (who have probably never even used FCP) are complaining about the Interface simply because it looks like iMovie, and so therefore must be "cheap/un-professional"?
You can't assume they've never used FCP. FCP is so readily available in the Post Production World, seems that everyone's got a copy of it at home whether it's the student edition or pirated.
You can't assume they've never used FCP. FCP is so readily available in the Post Production World, seems that everyone's got a copy of it at home whether it's the student edition or pirated.