Spock
Oct 14, 10:00 PM
I think Apple should just dump the iBook line and focus on making the TiBook cheaper I think apple should stop with the stupid Pretty cases and make a real laptop a person can afford. And I know that they won't dump the iBook but would it kill them to add a PCMiCA slot??
cr2sh
Apr 30, 09:35 PM
The Apple Store called my house and my mom told them I was at college and I wasn't interested.
I proceeded to soil myself.
Daniel.
Go punch her. Right now.
I proceeded to soil myself.
Daniel.
Go punch her. Right now.
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.
scem0
Oct 1, 07:33 PM
8.5 lbs? Ouch!
Exactly what I was thinking...
Exactly what I was thinking...
yg17
May 4, 11:21 PM
Did NASA design that router or something? Its awful.
MacBytes
Oct 24, 10:24 PM
Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Petition Garmin GPS support for Mac (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041024232426)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Link: Petition Garmin GPS support for Mac (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041024232426)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
lord patton
Jun 9, 08:48 AM
What is this fixation with TVs? Is there something that your TV set needs that you can't get from JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Zenith? ... Where do you see an opportunity for profit if Apple gets into this market?
exactly.
But they should expand into cell phones and a home media center/hub/router/perfect-life-maker type thingy. And I think they will.
exactly.
But they should expand into cell phones and a home media center/hub/router/perfect-life-maker type thingy. And I think they will.
juanster
Mar 17, 10:46 AM
i dont think there will be anew release for the next 8 months to tell yopu the truth...i say go for it..
Sesshi
Jun 12, 07:28 AM
Phones are what Apple needs to get into to leverage iTunes. Motorola just did not understand the concept and even Jobs didn't look too keen on it. The problem was that too much of the design was Motorola and not enough Apple. The problem on Apple's end is the R&D costs to be able to engineer a phone on their own. It's not like the 1G iPod for sure that way, where they lifted a number of off-the-shelf stuff to engineer a player. However it was pretty obvious that Apple was taking baby steps towards introducing a phone with the Motorola connection. They need to get a 'true Apple' phone out, or Sony has every chance of succeeding where it lost with the Walkman.
zero2dash
Apr 12, 08:36 AM
Hope the 360 takes note
I agree and have been thinking the same thing lately.
Why Microsoft doesn't take the IE7 core and port it to XNA (360), I'll never know. :confused: (as long as it was FREE)
Full version Internet Channel is good. I like the auto-hiding toolbar. :)
Again, no complaints about a free browser from me, especially one that enables me to surf while sitting.
I agree and have been thinking the same thing lately.
Why Microsoft doesn't take the IE7 core and port it to XNA (360), I'll never know. :confused: (as long as it was FREE)
Full version Internet Channel is good. I like the auto-hiding toolbar. :)
Again, no complaints about a free browser from me, especially one that enables me to surf while sitting.
ipacmm
May 15, 08:06 AM
2hr battery life. i didn't look at that, but dear god that is horrendous :rolleyes:
No real point in being a laptop with that battery life but it does look like a good computer, too bad it is running windows... I hope we can see some blu-ray drives or hd drives coming to the Mac soon.
No real point in being a laptop with that battery life but it does look like a good computer, too bad it is running windows... I hope we can see some blu-ray drives or hd drives coming to the Mac soon.
Caitlyn
Apr 9, 08:37 AM
I would love to work at an Apple Store, but that contract would bug me, as I know someone who worked at a store and left a bunch of forums. Kinda sucked. :(
ryme4reson
Oct 11, 02:14 AM
If you know about programming languages, and still refuse to accept the scores on the test, check this out:
Here is the code snippet in question: (C not java, for the sqrt function)
double x1,x2,x3 ;
Shrek 2 Cat
funny-cat. Type : Animals
Funny Cats Wallpaper Cats
Download Funny Cat Wallpapers,
.jpg "Funny Cat wallpaper funny dog")
Funny Cat wallpaper funny dog
Free funny cat phone wallpaper
Here is the code snippet in question: (C not java, for the sqrt function)
double x1,x2,x3 ;
Roba
May 3, 12:12 PM
When i ordered my Mac a few months ago the person who was taking my order online was logged into this site and a few other similar sites before i actually placed my order. I was unsure at the time if a faster Mac would come along soon after i ordered mine and so was the guy who took my order. He mentioned a few of these rumour sites and went to have a look at them when i was on the other end of the telephone line.
I think it maybe a wriiten or unwritten policy but obviously not everybody adheres to it.
Good luck with your interview Daedalus256.
I think it maybe a wriiten or unwritten policy but obviously not everybody adheres to it.
Good luck with your interview Daedalus256.
risc
Mar 26, 03:13 PM
Just fired folding@home up on my PS3. It may as well do something while I'm at work. Is there a MacRumors folding group to join?
BJNY
Sep 3, 09:03 AM
Hopefully, there is an store near you that sells Apple computers
where you can actually gauge for yourself how an iBook or TiBook
compares with your current setup.
where you can actually gauge for yourself how an iBook or TiBook
compares with your current setup.
SilvorX
Sep 14, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by madamimadam
HUH???
Why not hello Rendezvous over Bluetooth????
I think people are a little confused about what Rendezvous really is.
GRRR ever heard of a joke?
HUH???
Why not hello Rendezvous over Bluetooth????
I think people are a little confused about what Rendezvous really is.
GRRR ever heard of a joke?
.jpg "Funny Cat wallpaper funny dog")
jammer
Oct 1, 12:18 PM
I'm a bit disappointed as well. I've been waiting for reasonable display prices from Apple for long enough. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't just buy the Formac Gallery 2010? I mean, I like the widescreen look of the apple displays, but for $500-1300 less (depending on which Apple display you want to compare it to) even with the old rebate, I'll get over it. Plus I think the Formac has even nicer styling, and it seems, better performance than the Apple displays in terms of brightness, viewing angle and color accuracy. Am I wrong? Is anyone aware of any issues or limitations regarding these displays?
SamIchi
Mar 17, 06:38 PM
uh, they replace them for free? where? links please. thanks.
Just goto Nintendo.com
Definitely order them. I didn't think I would need them either, but the night before they actually arrived in the mail, my gf's sister broke one.
I ordered two, and they sent me two. You guys with extras are lucky.
Why not just order 4 then you have 2 extra.
Just goto Nintendo.com
Definitely order them. I didn't think I would need them either, but the night before they actually arrived in the mail, my gf's sister broke one.
I ordered two, and they sent me two. You guys with extras are lucky.
Why not just order 4 then you have 2 extra.
Nipsy
Sep 8, 07:42 PM
A certain company is trying to shift product udpates away from major Expos. They've found that the lack of orders directly preceding an expo, as well as the expo dates not agreeing with major edu buying schedules have made this a bad idea.
You can expect to see new software releases at all Apple expos, and sometimes product introductions, but I think that will be it in the future.
This allows for a more consistent sales pattern, and keeps you guessing as to when updates arrive.
You can expect to see new software releases at all Apple expos, and sometimes product introductions, but I think that will be it in the future.
This allows for a more consistent sales pattern, and keeps you guessing as to when updates arrive.
snoopy
Oct 15, 01:07 PM
This was posted by someone getting information from the forum I believe:
IBM POWER4 based processor. - PPC 970
Target process - 0.13um SOI 8 layer Cu interconnect
Target frequency 1.4 ~ 1.8 GHz
Target sample date 2Q03
Target ship date 2H03
Power 42W @ 1.8 GHz 1.3V (low power mode @ 1.1 V)
Est. SPEC INT 937 @ 1.8 GHz
Est. SPEC FP 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Chip features: Elastic unidirectional point-to-point interconnects between CPU and "companion chip" (i.e. memory controller/northbridge) Elastic link may run "UP TO" 900 MHz, offering 6.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
POWER4 internals. Max of 8 inst fetch per cycle, 8 inst issue per cycle, and 5 (4 + branch) inst dispatch per cycle.
32 KB L1 Dcache, 64 KB L1 Icache.
512K L2.
32 64 bit GPR (general purpose register)
32 64 bit FPR (float)
32 128 bit VRF (vector)
IBM POWER4 based processor. - PPC 970
Target process - 0.13um SOI 8 layer Cu interconnect
Target frequency 1.4 ~ 1.8 GHz
Target sample date 2Q03
Target ship date 2H03
Power 42W @ 1.8 GHz 1.3V (low power mode @ 1.1 V)
Est. SPEC INT 937 @ 1.8 GHz
Est. SPEC FP 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Chip features: Elastic unidirectional point-to-point interconnects between CPU and "companion chip" (i.e. memory controller/northbridge) Elastic link may run "UP TO" 900 MHz, offering 6.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth.
POWER4 internals. Max of 8 inst fetch per cycle, 8 inst issue per cycle, and 5 (4 + branch) inst dispatch per cycle.
32 KB L1 Dcache, 64 KB L1 Icache.
512K L2.
32 64 bit GPR (general purpose register)
32 64 bit FPR (float)
32 128 bit VRF (vector)
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Chad4Mac
Oct 16, 11:18 AM
"Uhm. I never said it was at 3-4+GHz. I said it was rated at 3400+ on the AMD scale. Like Athlon XP 2600+, Athlon XP 2000+, etc."
The 3-4+ Ghz I was refering to are the Intel chips. When AMD releases their new 64-bit chips, they will be directly competing with Intel's high, multithreaded P4's -- and also trying to draw sells (to manufactures) based on the new arcitechture. Intel is not to worried about these new chips coming into the market. AMD will have to do some serious campaning to get this chips to sell to the manufactures, and prove they are better/cheaper than the Intel chips -- when the Ghz are lower than the main competition (refering to the Hammer consumer model, considering that it will be considerably lower in Ghz than the Intel P4's).
It is not that I fail to reconginze the consumer 64-bit Hammer, it is that I fail to see the large pull from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. to adopt these chips into their professional, business and home model PC's. This is based on the fact that the PC users (both business and consumer) are not quite ready for this technology, while P4's are still coming out. Maybe later...
And the wide scale release of Windows Xp 32/64-bit hybrid, only for AMD in the first quarter on 2003 is very small scale. I think that Intel would have to enter the 64-bit market (which they are, but later) for sure in able for Microsoft to 100% commit a release a new XP edition (I know Microsoft has commited to developing 64-bit XP, but without Intels backing?).
Apple on the other hand loves this $#@%. So do its buyers. It's a totally different market that the PC market. New technology -- which would benefit data intense processing like video editing and photo enhancement -- is a concept that Apple consumers, I think, would eat up. I can hear Steve now, "our new processors are 64-bit for the PowerMac and PB, utilizing totally different technology than the current P4's..."
There is a Hammer consumer and server processor. But I am scetchy to commit that this chips will enter the market and be utilized by whatever PC manufactoring company, using 32/64-bit XP, and selling on a profit making basis (pulling AMD out of @#$% creek) -- especially first quarter 2003.
I tend to believe:
The Gartner Group has stated that it believes that there is not a market for the Opteron, heavly favoring Intel's IA-64 architecture later in 2003. Further, "their predictions indicate that there is no market demand for the hybrid 32/64-bit architecture such as Opteron, and that computing markets will either go all 64-bit or remain at 32-bits."
The 3-4+ Ghz I was refering to are the Intel chips. When AMD releases their new 64-bit chips, they will be directly competing with Intel's high, multithreaded P4's -- and also trying to draw sells (to manufactures) based on the new arcitechture. Intel is not to worried about these new chips coming into the market. AMD will have to do some serious campaning to get this chips to sell to the manufactures, and prove they are better/cheaper than the Intel chips -- when the Ghz are lower than the main competition (refering to the Hammer consumer model, considering that it will be considerably lower in Ghz than the Intel P4's).
It is not that I fail to reconginze the consumer 64-bit Hammer, it is that I fail to see the large pull from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. to adopt these chips into their professional, business and home model PC's. This is based on the fact that the PC users (both business and consumer) are not quite ready for this technology, while P4's are still coming out. Maybe later...
And the wide scale release of Windows Xp 32/64-bit hybrid, only for AMD in the first quarter on 2003 is very small scale. I think that Intel would have to enter the 64-bit market (which they are, but later) for sure in able for Microsoft to 100% commit a release a new XP edition (I know Microsoft has commited to developing 64-bit XP, but without Intels backing?).
Apple on the other hand loves this $#@%. So do its buyers. It's a totally different market that the PC market. New technology -- which would benefit data intense processing like video editing and photo enhancement -- is a concept that Apple consumers, I think, would eat up. I can hear Steve now, "our new processors are 64-bit for the PowerMac and PB, utilizing totally different technology than the current P4's..."
There is a Hammer consumer and server processor. But I am scetchy to commit that this chips will enter the market and be utilized by whatever PC manufactoring company, using 32/64-bit XP, and selling on a profit making basis (pulling AMD out of @#$% creek) -- especially first quarter 2003.
I tend to believe:
The Gartner Group has stated that it believes that there is not a market for the Opteron, heavly favoring Intel's IA-64 architecture later in 2003. Further, "their predictions indicate that there is no market demand for the hybrid 32/64-bit architecture such as Opteron, and that computing markets will either go all 64-bit or remain at 32-bits."
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:25 PM
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:What is unfair and unjust about DRM? It's your $.99, if you don't like DRM, don't bitch about it - just spend it elsewhere! :rolleyes: