mkruck
Apr 6, 04:02 PM
To each his one, yes; but exactly what does Android offer as a platform than iOS doesn't--and I don't mean multiple download sources. What "... more or different things..." are you doing on Android that can't be done on iOS?
The first couple if things that I appreciate on Andriod vs iOS:
1. Having a user accessible file system. I need the ability to store documents, images, etc., in a central location that's available to any app that can open it, without having to sync via iTunes or store in a cloud environment, which is a non-starter for me. I work in a classified environment. Cloud is a no-no. Syncing docs and images via iTunes specific to the app that generated them is a PITA.
2. I want my homescreen to look like my homescreen, as opposed to the 4x6 row of squares that iOS presents. If I want thumbnails of my wife and kids on my homescreen, I can do that. If I want stock updates, weather, twitter feeds, facebook nonsense, etc., etc., etc., displayed, I can do that.
3. Having a notification system that interrupts what I'm currently working on makes me crazy. I don't need a popup that demand user interaction to close.
There's three quick ones. I'm sure I can think of more given some time, but quite honestly, it's not my job to sell Xooms or Android devices.
The first couple if things that I appreciate on Andriod vs iOS:
1. Having a user accessible file system. I need the ability to store documents, images, etc., in a central location that's available to any app that can open it, without having to sync via iTunes or store in a cloud environment, which is a non-starter for me. I work in a classified environment. Cloud is a no-no. Syncing docs and images via iTunes specific to the app that generated them is a PITA.
2. I want my homescreen to look like my homescreen, as opposed to the 4x6 row of squares that iOS presents. If I want thumbnails of my wife and kids on my homescreen, I can do that. If I want stock updates, weather, twitter feeds, facebook nonsense, etc., etc., etc., displayed, I can do that.
3. Having a notification system that interrupts what I'm currently working on makes me crazy. I don't need a popup that demand user interaction to close.
There's three quick ones. I'm sure I can think of more given some time, but quite honestly, it's not my job to sell Xooms or Android devices.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 5, 08:40 PM
There will be no Xserve Pro until there is an Xserve Non-Pro. Many people would love to see an xserve mini (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/3FE506E2-FD6D-4FC6-BC9C-055F27279DF4.html), but at present there is no need to change the name.
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
I think iSteve said, when he introduced the MacBook Pro, that they weren't calling it the PowerBook becasue they wanted "mac" in the title (and obviously to take out Power). A new name with a new chip?
hob
Sep 13, 07:31 AM
That's a joke! Incredible. Shame they couldn't say much about the performance though...
For the performance of Clovertown you'll have to wait a bit longer as we're not allowed to disclose it just yet
For the performance of Clovertown you'll have to wait a bit longer as we're not allowed to disclose it just yet
ServiceTag
Apr 8, 03:12 AM
These BB guys were making some odd and strange excuses for low stock. Made me run around on many occasions. They shouldn't be allowed to sell iPad. Apple take them away from these jack**s. :mad: You deserve it!!!!
Agree 100%. I wish BB goes out of business. Went 3x into different stores after I called and got confirmation they got shipment. Every time same stupid excuse - we can't sell it because of pre-orders, however we don't take pre-orders any more!?
In my area most BB managers are just bunch of corporate wanna be idiots....
Agree 100%. I wish BB goes out of business. Went 3x into different stores after I called and got confirmation they got shipment. Every time same stupid excuse - we can't sell it because of pre-orders, however we don't take pre-orders any more!?
In my area most BB managers are just bunch of corporate wanna be idiots....
georgi0
Sep 19, 01:22 AM
Several other companies have 2 lb laptops. Where is my Mac 2 lb laptop?
i think this will imply a huge expansion for apple (to cover on all markets of laptops) resulting in problems with the assebly lines too many models to support and etc.
ithink just a few models for now will gurantee better support and clear problem solving when something happensto them.
i think this will imply a huge expansion for apple (to cover on all markets of laptops) resulting in problems with the assebly lines too many models to support and etc.
ithink just a few models for now will gurantee better support and clear problem solving when something happensto them.
ergle2
Sep 14, 10:49 PM
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Intel's stated plans as I understand them are thus:
A new micro-arch every 2 years. I don't think they mean brand new so much as "significant changes/improvements". Whether this is akin to Yonah->Conroe or Netburst->Conroe remains to be seen, but more like the former (or perhaps Pentium-M -> Merom -- Core Duo was very much a stop-gap). Little has been released about Nehalem, but at one time it was slated as "based on Banias/Dothan", due in 2005 and expected to ramp to 9/10GHz.
"Off" years will recieve derivative versions (e.g. Merom->Penryn), which appears to be mostly stuff like L2 cache increases, faster FSB speeds (at least while we have FSBs - 2008 looks like the year for DCI, finally), die shrinks, increasing the number of cores (expect at least one to be more cores on a single die instead of two dice/package), etc.
Die shrinks are currently scheduled for "off" years, in order to stablize the process ready for the new micro-arch in the following year so Intel doesn't need to deal with both new process and new arch at the same time, and presumably in part to keep speed increases coming in "off" years
Of course, roadmaps can change quite rapidly -- it's not that long ago that Whitfield was expected to debut late 2006 with DCI (FSB replacement). Whitfield was replaced by Tigerton which is now due sometime in 2007...
One thing's for sure, Intel appears to have learnt a great deal from the Netburst fiasco -- how not to do things, if nothing else. Unfortunately, they still estimate ~50% of processors shipping in 1Q2007 will be netburst-based (mostly Pentium-D).
Sydde
Mar 24, 01:28 PM
And the vast majority of WASPs are racists? Got it.
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
SevenInchScrew
Aug 10, 10:11 AM
...so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold
No, there has been 8 Gran Turismo games totaling 56M. If you only count the 4 full release titles, you get 46M.
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
mario kart is a different type of racing game, geared towards a different audience.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
i'm not saying sales are the only factor, but when you get to the level of Gran Turismo, that's when vendors start making real cars just for the game...
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
No, there has been 8 Gran Turismo games totaling 56M. If you only count the 4 full release titles, you get 46M.
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
mario kart is a different type of racing game, geared towards a different audience.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
i'm not saying sales are the only factor, but when you get to the level of Gran Turismo, that's when vendors start making real cars just for the game...
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
kugino
Aug 7, 11:45 PM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
hmmm, most of the features are already in windows? what version of windows do you have? are you from the future? and, ummm, who knows what's going to be in vista because it keeps changing...even what you see now may not make the final cut. to say that the two OSs are the same because they both have the same features is akin to saying that a yugo and a mercedes are both the same because they both have four wheels and an engine. look, there are things that vista will have that osx will lack...there are things in osx that vista will lack. neither os will be perfect. still, os x is great because of its underlying architecture and not only b/c of this feature or that feature.
and most people will not be making their buying decision on which os is better...the greater selling point on the mac is boot camp and booting windows on the mac. most people aren't going to care what os is better.
deputy_doofy
Sep 19, 08:54 AM
Not that I really believe we'll see something today, but if we do, I'm buying - magnetic latch or not. :p
Consultant
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
WRONG. A lot of modern GUI elements are INVENTED by Apple:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
treblah
Aug 5, 03:40 PM
Displays?
laidbackliam
Aug 7, 10:39 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
PlipPlop
Apr 6, 03:10 PM
Shame people are brainwashed by Apple with their crappy product, and the superior tablet is behind on sales. Im sure it will pick up soon.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:55 AM
Lets not forget things like Spotlight that can now run more rigorously without affecting CPU resource much. You will get more intelligent software that can prepare for what you want to do so that when you go to do it it will be much more responsive. In other words just because some tasks cannot be easily broken up to leverage multiple cores doesn't mean that tasks such as those cannot be speculative run by software on idle cores in preparation for you doing the task.
Yes, that's definitely true. And I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
Yes, that's definitely true. And I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
Unspeaked
Sep 19, 10:51 AM
You know, Sony and Nintendo are just *SO* behind the curve with next gen gaming systems.
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get what I want, because I'm childish like that.
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get what I want, because I'm childish like that.
tortoise
Aug 23, 03:04 PM
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.
The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.
I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 01:08 PM
How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
LethalWolfe
Apr 10, 10:31 PM
Unless, like I posted earlier, the iPad app functions as a UI for the main application over the network. The Mac (or cluster of macs) takes care of the heavy lifting, and the iPad is used to make edits remotely, and broadcast to HDTV's.
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
Avid demo'd basically this last year at NAB. IIRC all the media was on servers in Virginia and the presenter did the demonstration on a laptop using a web app.
Lethal
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
Avid demo'd basically this last year at NAB. IIRC all the media was on servers in Virginia and the presenter did the demonstration on a laptop using a web app.
Lethal
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
twoodcc
Jul 27, 10:59 PM
Could Shadowfax or Shawnce or someone else who knows describe a little more about the implications of the upgrade from Yonah to Merom? I'm trying to decide whether to get a Macbook or wait, I'm not that worried about the minor speed boost, but I am more concerned about longer term compatibility (say with mac OS or Windows). If there's going to be a point in a couple of years where the difference between Yonah and Merom is the difference between running the latest version of the OS or not, then I might wait. But if it's only speed and heat, I'll probably go for the Yonah (after WWDC) and live with not having the speed and lower heat that the upgrade brings.
i want to know the exact same thing
i want to know the exact same thing
hcuar
Sep 19, 12:27 PM
I'm finding it hilarious that you can put yourself into Stevie's reality distortion field even after the Intel switch. Maybe while Apple had PPC, you could have said that. But now that direct hardware comparisons can be made, don't you think it's stupid that sub-$1000 PC notebooks have better processors than the best Apple has to offer?
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
No way are you looking at a sub $1000 PC notebook with a Core 2 Duo. (edit: haha the Core 2 Duo you linked is a POS... it might be a C2D, but it operates at 1/2 the core frequency... GG).
It's not a matter of comparing Dell/Alienware to Apple for myself. There's only one type of machine I would purchase. I wouldn't purchase the current Macbook/pro right now realizing that a refresh is coming. However, some people really wouldn't care. If I "had" to purchase one... I'd get the Apple hands down. I'd gimp a bit and get OS X.
No... I don't have a MBP... no... I don't have an Intel based Mac. I'm sitting on the two Macs in my sig. I won't upgrade them until they die.
I'm not in any sort of reality distortion field. I just understand paying a bit more and accepting the products offered is a better option that getting "leet" hardware. Best example for me is AMD versus Intel. AMD has offered a faster processor for years, which was actually cheaper (until recently)... However Intel has provided the quality/stability. Therefore I wouldn't touch AMD. (I did with the XP line... big mistake). I consider Apple to be in the same realm. Did you ever consider that Apple actually cares about the engineering, and might be working a few bugs out?
I believe the age of good enough and cheap is over for the PC world. The market is making a shift to better reliability/stability.
And yes, the MBP is a top-of-the-line laptop. Apart from 2'' thick behemoths, it was one of the fastest portables around, and it was priced accordingly. Now it's still priced as such, but times are moving, technology is advancing, and if you compare pound for pound, the MBP is behind.
No way are you looking at a sub $1000 PC notebook with a Core 2 Duo. (edit: haha the Core 2 Duo you linked is a POS... it might be a C2D, but it operates at 1/2 the core frequency... GG).
It's not a matter of comparing Dell/Alienware to Apple for myself. There's only one type of machine I would purchase. I wouldn't purchase the current Macbook/pro right now realizing that a refresh is coming. However, some people really wouldn't care. If I "had" to purchase one... I'd get the Apple hands down. I'd gimp a bit and get OS X.
No... I don't have a MBP... no... I don't have an Intel based Mac. I'm sitting on the two Macs in my sig. I won't upgrade them until they die.
I'm not in any sort of reality distortion field. I just understand paying a bit more and accepting the products offered is a better option that getting "leet" hardware. Best example for me is AMD versus Intel. AMD has offered a faster processor for years, which was actually cheaper (until recently)... However Intel has provided the quality/stability. Therefore I wouldn't touch AMD. (I did with the XP line... big mistake). I consider Apple to be in the same realm. Did you ever consider that Apple actually cares about the engineering, and might be working a few bugs out?
I believe the age of good enough and cheap is over for the PC world. The market is making a shift to better reliability/stability.
FF_productions
Aug 5, 03:26 PM
Finally MR has put together a final rumor roundup...
No comments:
Post a Comment