sb58
Mar 20, 04:33 PM
i doubt anyone who already has a 360 would be willing to buy that... not enough of an upgrade imo.
macridah
Sep 16, 11:17 AM
No mention about safari or does that fall into the "catch all" browser category. Well it's good to hear that people are making the right choices. If IE was a good product, then I wouldn't bash it ... but it is, and I am.
For windows, Firefox is much better than IE: Hands down.
For windows, Firefox is much better than IE: Hands down.
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:24 PM
AHAHAHHAHA, good job. I think the head of Napster should send this link to the record company execs. Karma is a bitch.
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
technocoy
Oct 20, 12:12 PM
I did a post about this on friday...
the powerPC 970 will be in future macs... trust me
technocoy
the powerPC 970 will be in future macs... trust me
technocoy
Paul O'Keefe
Mar 24, 09:31 AM
That screen shot looks good. The interface looks a whole lot better. I'd prefer if it ran as OS X Native, but I might actually give this version a shot.
peter32892
Sep 17, 03:57 PM
I hope your nephew wins this. seems to me like a lot of people voted for him so I hope he wins and gets to go to a good school.:) :D :cool:
840quadra
May 19, 01:18 AM
OK. Just a friendly piece of advice and empirical observation coming from hours of tweaking G3s, G4s, G5s, P4s, Dual Athlons, and Dual Xeons for maximum efficiency.
I looked at your team, and it appears that the OSX group's numbers tanked, and remain low at near the same time Macrumors did, while more PC based groups do not show such drops. It may not be Tinker related, but it looks like the recent WU's being released by Stanford are not too Macintosh friendly.
I looked at your team, and it appears that the OSX group's numbers tanked, and remain low at near the same time Macrumors did, while more PC based groups do not show such drops. It may not be Tinker related, but it looks like the recent WU's being released by Stanford are not too Macintosh friendly.
scem0
Oct 20, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad
Cool, now we know for sure that Apple will never use IBM's high end cpu's in any future PowerMac.
Why? They cannot implement AltiVec into Power4 processors! OS X would be slow on those machines because it is optimized for AltiVec, Dual G4's etc. Apple's programmers would have to do everything from beggining and consumers would suffer. No more AltiVec enhanced scrolling, MPEG-2 encoding, real-time effects with FCP, fast iMovie rendering, iTunes...
Not to mention other pissed off 3rd party developers (especially Adobe)! So shut up about IBM chips, its not going to happen! Macs would become overally slower then with G4's.
As for revolution (aka new powermac which is 2x faster then anything before). Well, its not going to happen either. Marketing doesn't allow it, overall manufacturing costs dont allow it and many other things dont allow it. It is always going to be like this.. So, 20% speed bump is best we will ever get, which is ok with me.
We might see a high end IBM processor that has altivec support... Just because there are none out now doesn't mean there will never be any out. And even without AltiVec on a fast system, the OS will be fast - altivec or not. Not as fast as it would be w/ altivec, but fast enough. Adobe might be pissed, but who cares. They can deal.
As for no 2x speed increases - that is not true at all. I could totally see that happening. Why would marketing not allow that? Wouldn't they welcome it? If apple figured out some semiconductor manufacturing strategy right now, and started being able to produce 2.8 GHz g4's at half the cost of the current ones, why the hell wouldn't apple be able to sell it??? Im not saying that will happen, but technology is unpredictable... Be ready for anything.
Cool, now we know for sure that Apple will never use IBM's high end cpu's in any future PowerMac.
Why? They cannot implement AltiVec into Power4 processors! OS X would be slow on those machines because it is optimized for AltiVec, Dual G4's etc. Apple's programmers would have to do everything from beggining and consumers would suffer. No more AltiVec enhanced scrolling, MPEG-2 encoding, real-time effects with FCP, fast iMovie rendering, iTunes...
Not to mention other pissed off 3rd party developers (especially Adobe)! So shut up about IBM chips, its not going to happen! Macs would become overally slower then with G4's.
As for revolution (aka new powermac which is 2x faster then anything before). Well, its not going to happen either. Marketing doesn't allow it, overall manufacturing costs dont allow it and many other things dont allow it. It is always going to be like this.. So, 20% speed bump is best we will ever get, which is ok with me.
We might see a high end IBM processor that has altivec support... Just because there are none out now doesn't mean there will never be any out. And even without AltiVec on a fast system, the OS will be fast - altivec or not. Not as fast as it would be w/ altivec, but fast enough. Adobe might be pissed, but who cares. They can deal.
As for no 2x speed increases - that is not true at all. I could totally see that happening. Why would marketing not allow that? Wouldn't they welcome it? If apple figured out some semiconductor manufacturing strategy right now, and started being able to produce 2.8 GHz g4's at half the cost of the current ones, why the hell wouldn't apple be able to sell it??? Im not saying that will happen, but technology is unpredictable... Be ready for anything.
Fourbin
Sep 16, 03:34 PM
I've been using Firefox on OSX for the past week or so and I like it better than Safari because of the extensions (especially the GMail indicator), themes and most importantly tabbed browsing. However, I was on the Mozilla site today and noticed that they state 'Camino' is the preferred OSX browser because it incorporates with Keychains, Rendevous etc. Is Camino really all that different than Firefox? Which is better?
Angelus
Sep 26, 07:03 PM
I think the idea of a 19inch screen imac is great but i just thought of one thing.The attraction of powermacs apart from the dual processor,extra hard drives and better graphics cards capabilities is the ability to add larger monitors eg.fabulous 22" or 23"HD displays.
If apple were to manufacture an imac with a 1ghz+G4,133Mhz bus and 19inch lcd it would probably have a better graphics card to drive the display and a superdrive as it would be the top model. in my opinion that could blur the line between the consumer and pro range.The price would go up i presume but it would still be cheaper than a lowend powermac with 17"lcd and you would also get more screen real estate.
Granted if your a professional you will most likely go for the gusto and buy a DP1.25Ghz but for the person who is lets say an incredibly enthusiastic consumer what would you prefer a dual 867Mhz with 17"lcd or a 1Ghz imac with 19inch lcd all in a neat little package(including superdrive+probably better graphics card).
This of course will only apply to someone who wants all apple cos they could just buy the DP867,add memory and cards and just buy a cheap,bulky crt(but then they will probably be plagued with a lack of space,high electricity bills and poor eyesight :)
If apple were to manufacture an imac with a 1ghz+G4,133Mhz bus and 19inch lcd it would probably have a better graphics card to drive the display and a superdrive as it would be the top model. in my opinion that could blur the line between the consumer and pro range.The price would go up i presume but it would still be cheaper than a lowend powermac with 17"lcd and you would also get more screen real estate.
Granted if your a professional you will most likely go for the gusto and buy a DP1.25Ghz but for the person who is lets say an incredibly enthusiastic consumer what would you prefer a dual 867Mhz with 17"lcd or a 1Ghz imac with 19inch lcd all in a neat little package(including superdrive+probably better graphics card).
This of course will only apply to someone who wants all apple cos they could just buy the DP867,add memory and cards and just buy a cheap,bulky crt(but then they will probably be plagued with a lack of space,high electricity bills and poor eyesight :)
cr2sh
Oct 9, 01:11 AM
all we need is the bandwidth to handle file sizes that require such capacity. let's face it, while storage maybe be growing in leaps and bounds, transfer rates are not. if everyhousehold was coupled with a t1 line, even then 200gigs (the smallest capacity we're talking about) would take over a half hour to transfer (optimal conditions). Yet the idea of residential t1 lines seems to be a couple years off (maybe less?).... why do we need such for the meager DSL/CABLE?
Also, transfer rates to such a harddrive will be thru what format and at what speed? I have no doubt that the capacity is coming, but at what point will we get bandwidth so that we can fully use it? Let's increase resolution and sample frequency... and though we have a place to store it... but how the heck are we going to transfer that much data? (in 1's and 0's of course!)
Maybe these are silly questions and if so please dismiss them as so, but an explanantion would be greatly appreciated, or if there's new technology someone throw me a link.. thanks guys. (It is late so maybe this will be more obvious in 6hours - goddamn morning lectures!)
:D
<edit>
i've filled my share of 60gig drives before so i dont mean to come across as "that storage is unneeded" because i know it is... but i just feel its growing without support from other related technology which it is dependant on...
Also, transfer rates to such a harddrive will be thru what format and at what speed? I have no doubt that the capacity is coming, but at what point will we get bandwidth so that we can fully use it? Let's increase resolution and sample frequency... and though we have a place to store it... but how the heck are we going to transfer that much data? (in 1's and 0's of course!)
Maybe these are silly questions and if so please dismiss them as so, but an explanantion would be greatly appreciated, or if there's new technology someone throw me a link.. thanks guys. (It is late so maybe this will be more obvious in 6hours - goddamn morning lectures!)
:D
<edit>
i've filled my share of 60gig drives before so i dont mean to come across as "that storage is unneeded" because i know it is... but i just feel its growing without support from other related technology which it is dependant on...
DeeJay Dan
Mar 28, 07:46 AM
If you do decide to format and reinstall create a partition and a disk image of a clean install.
Rower_CPU
Jan 29, 12:39 PM
spikey went out in a blaze of glory on a couple of occasions. I should know, I was one of the targets (pre-moderator days). ;)
Dreadnought
Jun 10, 04:29 AM
Guys, where did we go wrong?! SilentPCReview isn't getting any closer and we lost sight of the Dutch Power Cows. Our output is dropping almost every day. We need to make a battleplan and overtake them once and for all! BTW, there isn't anyone out there that has a computerlab that stays on for the summerbreak at school (or at work) and could install folding on??
oldMac
Sep 16, 01:09 PM
I suspect that the conference call (several years ago) went something like this:
Motorola Engineer: "We can deliver Altivec and give you a big speed advantage for a certain small subset of applications."
Motorola Salesman: *pipes up* "This will give you a big marketing advantage."
Apple Guy: "That sounds good. How about you, IBM?"
IBM Engineer: "We could do that, but I think it would be a mistake. The complexity of that unit will likely hogtie the processor's scalability. We could work on it a little more, but don't recommend it right now."
Apple Guy: "Motorola?"
Motorola Salesman: "IBM doesn't know what they're talking about. Our technology must just be better than theirs. There's no way this will slow us down. In fact, we'll beat the pants off of Intel."
Apple Guy: "Sounds good to me."
Motorola Salesman (whispers to Mot engineer): "We can do that, right?"
Motorola Engineeer: *shrugs*
Motorola Engineer: "We can deliver Altivec and give you a big speed advantage for a certain small subset of applications."
Motorola Salesman: *pipes up* "This will give you a big marketing advantage."
Apple Guy: "That sounds good. How about you, IBM?"
IBM Engineer: "We could do that, but I think it would be a mistake. The complexity of that unit will likely hogtie the processor's scalability. We could work on it a little more, but don't recommend it right now."
Apple Guy: "Motorola?"
Motorola Salesman: "IBM doesn't know what they're talking about. Our technology must just be better than theirs. There's no way this will slow us down. In fact, we'll beat the pants off of Intel."
Apple Guy: "Sounds good to me."
Motorola Salesman (whispers to Mot engineer): "We can do that, right?"
Motorola Engineeer: *shrugs*
MacRumorUser
Mar 20, 06:46 PM
UPDATE: We've received word from Sony that you will indeed be able to play games while downloading content in the background. Similar to how downloads on the Xbox 360 works, you'll be able to play games offline while downloads work in the background, and if you hop online your queue will simply pause until you disconnect.
Thankgod - knowing how long some of those downloads take - restricting what you can do is bad mmmmkay....
Thankgod - knowing how long some of those downloads take - restricting what you can do is bad mmmmkay....
MacCoaster
Sep 22, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
alex_ant
Oct 14, 12:05 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/10/14/financial0309EDT0011.DTL
annk
Sep 9, 03:39 PM
Voted again. :)
taeclee99
Jul 20, 10:46 PM
just three for now.
powerbook g4
powermac g5
cheap ol' pc cuz motorola phone tools will work on mac
powerbook g4
powermac g5
cheap ol' pc cuz motorola phone tools will work on mac
Jay42
Apr 3, 08:11 PM
Yeah, the thought of being too hard on MS occasionally runs through my mind, but never for very long....when you see stuff like this (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BYNLfKsA0FkJ:oami.eu.int/PDF/design/invaldec/ICD%2520000000743%2520decision%2520(EN).pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)...
Kalns
Mar 25, 12:29 PM
http://folding.stanford.edu/
Go to that link and take a look. All that's needed to help is an internet connection and your spare processing power. I leave my computer on every night, so it may as well go to good use right?
Go to that link and take a look. All that's needed to help is an internet connection and your spare processing power. I leave my computer on every night, so it may as well go to good use right?
Allotriophagy
Mar 21, 09:52 AM
That is pretty much how I play it now. I prefer to play with real friends, in the same room together.
Otherwise I just spend my time buying Chinese gold and twinking my BG chars.
Otherwise I just spend my time buying Chinese gold and twinking my BG chars.