citizenzen
Apr 26, 07:36 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If you're suggesting that Front Row's remote would be suitable for a DVR, I think you're dead wrong.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If you're suggesting that Front Row's remote would be suitable for a DVR, I think you're dead wrong.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 05:28 PM
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
DelisleBA.info
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
alexdrinan
Jul 12, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
stunna
Jul 12, 09:57 AM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 10:02 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
munkery
May 2, 04:42 PM
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
DavidCar
Sep 26, 12:16 AM
...In the likely event Apple choses to use Cloverton Xeon core as the next Mac Pro CPU, educated speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use. In such a scenario, Apple may elect to keep a Woodcrest configuration at the bottom end for customizability (currently, Apple offers 3 chip speeds in the Mac Pro). ...Why would they change the basic configuration of the Mac Pro? The two Clovertown chips will just appear as high end options as soon as they become available.
.jpg "Animal Print Jungle Leopard")
Icaras
Apr 21, 04:50 AM
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
I was thinking this as well :D
I was thinking this as well :D
Ugg
Mar 13, 12:21 PM
What is the alternative to nuclear power? These green ways of producing electricity cost a lot more and what I've heard, they can't provide enough power. Plus they don't work everywhere (not enough sun or wind in here for example).
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
Whether it's a good move to build nuclear plants near tectonic plate joints, that's another question. We don't have seismic activity in here so such natural catastrophes aren't a concern.
Of course you would say that, Finland gets ~30% of its energy from nuclear. Olkiluoto isn't exactly coming in under budget, is it?
It's not just a matter whether it is safe in your country, it's also a matter of whether it's safe for your neighbors. If I remember correctly, y'all had to throw away a lot of caribou meat after Chernobyl.
Xenious
Aug 29, 01:03 PM
Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
That's NOT what the argument is about. Your church LIED to people about the efficacy of condoms - people for whom the only source of that information was the Catholic church.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:26 PM
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Lesser Evets
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Why does bullying have to be attached to GLBT?
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
alexf
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
Seriously.
A lot of people (and companies, such as Apple).
Seriously.
Backtothemac
Oct 8, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 03:57 PM
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
skunk
Apr 26, 05:38 PM
I could murder some toast.
p0intblank
Sep 20, 04:38 PM
I'm really hoping this is the iPod all over again. In other words, I hope all the naysayers here get proved wrong and the iTV becomes the new toy everyone has to have in their house.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
Apple needs to market this, by the way. Guaranteed there are tons of households willing to purchase this just to play photo slideshows on their TVs. I hope Apple can get the message across. I want as many people possible to recognize what a great product this is going to be.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:18 AM
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment