cloudnine
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
mkruck
Apr 6, 02:56 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I asked my father for a toy and he came with a different one... I was the saddest kid on earth.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
Funny, and true.
By the same token, if I explicitly told my wife I wanted a Xoom, Playbook, Tab 10.1 and she came home with an iPad, I wouldn't be the saddest kid on earth, but I do know that I'd be returning it for something I want.
Of course, I also hate it when she brings me home a cheeseburger when I wanted a hamburger.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
Funny, and true.
By the same token, if I explicitly told my wife I wanted a Xoom, Playbook, Tab 10.1 and she came home with an iPad, I wouldn't be the saddest kid on earth, but I do know that I'd be returning it for something I want.
Of course, I also hate it when she brings me home a cheeseburger when I wanted a hamburger.
mdntcallr
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 10:10 PM
I do get a kick out of their 10.1" model being both thinner and lighter than the 9.7" Ipad2 though. That will undoubtedly have the apple apologists out en masse.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
if you think 'getting a kick' from these points says anything remotely positive about your character...you'd be wrong.
nagromme
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Except Conroes don't support dual processor configuration. Woodcrest does, hence the reason it will be in the Pro line machines while Conroe is put into new iMacs.
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
Right, but I didn't say dual processors, I said dual cores.
I see no reason why ALL Pro machines need quad cores, when today's dual core G5s are FAR slower than that and still blaze through a lot of useful work! An all-quad pro lineup would be "cool" (and I seek a quad anyway, personally) but would simply add cost without justification, for many people.
In addition, if the new chips are supply-constrained at all having both Conroe and Woodcrest in the pro towers could help. (And the iMac does fine with Yonah for a while if need be--which seems likely to happen to me.)
waldobushman
Mar 26, 04:40 PM
It's this mentality that makes me smile.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
Without knowing any of the details as to what the final shipping version will be, mezmerized (hypnotized ?) by Apple, enthusiasts are ready to pay whatever Apple demands for the product.
I get to sit back without any effort, and watch with delight as they pour the money into Apples coffers. In turn, my vast amount of Apple stock climbs higher & higher as they brag about Apples Billions.
Their blind trust pays me well. Thanks Apple !
Of course one should upgrade to the next OS X release. Apple makes substantial changes in each major release; if not functionally, then in refactoring code for future enhancements. I'll wait until it is known to be stable, and know that the software I use will run under the new version.
Apple is not MS. I stayed with Windows XP until Windows 7 was reasonably stable. The only reason to not move to the new OS would be lack of support for current hardware. Not likely to happen with Lion.
LaDirection
Jul 14, 04:36 PM
"Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.
""Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system."
IBM never produced chips that could run at 2.7GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.2GHz instead of the 3GHz promised. Apple requested that chips be overclocked to 2.5GHz. In IBM was stuck at 2.3 GHZ, these chips were also overclocked to 2.7GHz. This year we are at Dual Cores 2.5Ghz. Even if Apple uses nothing but 2.66 GHz Dual cores, they will still be the fastest, non-overcloked chips that Apple has ever used.
"IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz."
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day! But 2 or more cores/CPU are only good if your app can use them. Most applications, and in fact many of Apple, do not use more than 2 cores/CPUS. The Quad core G5's are a good example how the 3rd and 4th core are 98% or the time unused. A Dual 3GHz to a user would be much more usuefull than an 8 core 2.5GHz!
P.S. The number ONE problem that Apple must address in their pro line is the lack of Hard Drive bays! We need at least 4 HD, please! An internal 10,000 RPM RAID array is music to teh ears of pro video and film users.
silentnite
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm sure apple is not the only one doing it besides (Android) once they dig a little deeper will see.
gugy
Aug 6, 01:48 PM
"The Name Mac Pro is our Trademark, not Apple's"
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
good luck for you.
I would not put up a fight against a giant like Apple.
Plus, I don't see having a computer named Mac Pro would interfere with your business in a bad way. Actually, I think it would be good thing for you.
840quadra
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.
Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 12:14 PM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
amols
Aug 27, 02:02 AM
The next major upgrade to Intel's notebook design isn't expected until early 2007 with a new notebook platform named "Santa Rosa". Santa Rosa will combine the Core 2 Duo processors with new supporting chips as well as Intel's AMT (http://www.intel.com/technology/manage/iamt/) (Active Management Technology) and Robson technology.
I still pity those guys expecting "Major" MBP performance gain by moving to Merom without Santa Rosa. They are as ignorant as those people expecting G5s with their two pound heat sinks to go in powerbooks. I'm just looking forward to see Conroe iMac and better battery life for MBPs. And iPod update off course ;)
I still pity those guys expecting "Major" MBP performance gain by moving to Merom without Santa Rosa. They are as ignorant as those people expecting G5s with their two pound heat sinks to go in powerbooks. I'm just looking forward to see Conroe iMac and better battery life for MBPs. And iPod update off course ;)
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.
I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 08:45 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
...And the Oscar for "Greatest Generalization In An Online Forum" goes to...
You.
:rolleyes:
paulvee
Aug 18, 06:45 PM
My 3.0's shipping date just changed - for no obvious reason - from 8/20 to 9/19. One month. Clearly, something just got snagged in the supply chain.
Anyone else have this?
Anyone else have this?
illegalprelude
Jul 15, 04:12 AM
Not a chance in the near future. Blu Ray and Sony are in utter shambles right now.
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion? :rolleyes:
kavika411
Feb 28, 08:20 PM
According to the school's website (http://www.chc.edu/News/2011/February/statement_regarding_jim_st_george/), he was not fired as the OP's article suggests. Rather, his contract was not renewed. AFAIK, adjunct instructors do not enjoy the same privileges as tenured professors. If his contract ran out and was simply not renewed, then that's that, unless it can be argued that the college has some legal obligation to offer a new contract.
But threads like this are above further research. Not sure why you'd want to mess up a perfectly good party.
But threads like this are above further research. Not sure why you'd want to mess up a perfectly good party.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 05:07 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
Android has taken fanboyism to epic new proportions. You can't go anywhere on the Web these days without the Android Brigade screaming at you about how awesome, "free" and "open" it is and how you should get on board. Just post the comment "ANDROID FTW!!!" on Engadget and watch the upvotes ensue. And while they're celebrating their epic market share gains, they are referring to iOS users as "sheep." Riiiight.
I thought the Apple vs Microsoft holy war was bad (and we have at least one pro MS astroturfer on this Apple-oriented site), but Google seriously has a mindlock on some of these people. (I'm not referring to all Android users, mind you, only the ranting/raving types (which seem to be the majority these days).
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
playaj82
Aug 7, 03:37 PM
If the rumor sites were right....
Mac Pro
Leopard
iPhone
Core 2 Duo
iMac
Tablet, etc...
the keynote would have been 6 hours.
I'm glad they took their time with Leopard and highlighted some neat new and much needed additions to tiger.
Mac Pro
Leopard
iPhone
Core 2 Duo
iMac
Tablet, etc...
the keynote would have been 6 hours.
I'm glad they took their time with Leopard and highlighted some neat new and much needed additions to tiger.
torbjoern
Mar 1, 04:22 AM
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
AFAIK, Christians have this idea of "inherited sin". The predisposal to sin doesn't come from God, but from Adam.
AFAIK, Christians have this idea of "inherited sin". The predisposal to sin doesn't come from God, but from Adam.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Also, the iMac is a 32-bit computer, and these are 64-bit chips, reducing any possiblity to zero.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
alphaod
Dec 4, 05:08 PM
I've been doing B-spec the whole time. Just set a race up and then go do other stuff. Come back it's done; repeat. :p
No comments:
Post a Comment