fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
alexeismertin
Aug 29, 12:10 PM
I hate people who are soo stuck up Apples arsehole that rather than accept Apple are poor environmentally, still stick up for a computer company.
It might not affect you, or the people on your street, or your city but somewhere in the world the impact of Apples actions are being felt.
I'll accept its not just Apple but this site is about Apple so lets not compare or excuse to justify Apples actions.
Big profits Big responsibilty
It might not affect you, or the people on your street, or your city but somewhere in the world the impact of Apples actions are being felt.
I'll accept its not just Apple but this site is about Apple so lets not compare or excuse to justify Apples actions.
Big profits Big responsibilty
kresh
Oct 26, 02:39 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Wow, simply amazing. Kudos Apple!
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:09 PM
Dual optical drive slots are a must. I love my Mirrored Drive Door at work for this fact.
toddybody
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Stay away from LTD, he only comments with the same dribble about "Apple is superior" "Steve is great" blah blah blah. If you look up fanboy in the dictionary you will get LTD. Never comments on a thread that paints apple in a negative light...
I dont have him on ignore because I like a laugh or 2 per day from his posts. :D
Thanks for the advice...I dont care for people who elevate Apple to a "do no wrong" status(If LTD is or not). IMO, thats the reason Apple pushes sub competitive GPU's down our throat...they know that people are gonna buy them regardless. :(
I dont have him on ignore because I like a laugh or 2 per day from his posts. :D
Thanks for the advice...I dont care for people who elevate Apple to a "do no wrong" status(If LTD is or not). IMO, thats the reason Apple pushes sub competitive GPU's down our throat...they know that people are gonna buy them regardless. :(
portishead
Apr 12, 10:48 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 12:43 PM
I think we'd all agree it'd be nice for Apple to have more of a worldwide presence. As for emerging technologies, global efforts require a lot more research and funding than if Apple were to just stay in the U.S. That's why Apple's technologies always start here.
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
Think about it: Apple started iTunes nationally. It took a little time to get going but eventually it took off and Apple had the confidence that it would work world-wide... so they started expanding.
But imagine instead that Apple unleashed iTunes worldwide from day one. The investment required for something like that would have been MUCH too high for the risk of the project.
The same goes for TV content. TV content on the iTS is still relatively new and now that Apple has seen the success of it in the US, they will start expanding world-wide. In fact, Apple has seen the success of the iTS as a whole and knows that its reputation is favorable. This will allow them to expand their new content globally in a shorter amount of time (since it's less of a risk now).
It's more than just reputation, though. Different places around the world have different licensing requirements, so it's not as simple as flicking a switch and allowing other countries to connect to the iTS. There's a lot of bureaucracy and negotiations involved.
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you. Apple is a U.S. company. If you're not in the U.S., you can't expect Apple's merchandise and services immediately upon release. It just doesn't work that way.
-Clive
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 27, 08:37 AM
It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 05:29 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol
the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
GGJstudios
May 3, 05:30 PM
You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
joepunk
Mar 11, 01:16 AM
Just heard about it on CBC late night news. Terrible.
BWhaler
Jul 11, 11:47 PM
I certainly don't know, but in the past I thought Apple would of gone with the Conroe chip.
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.
My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
OK. Now you are just over reacting.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
I pointed out your post in which you wrote that you think it is not a good idea that the media sends out a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
Got that? :confused:
Jeeezus.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
firestarter
Mar 15, 07:38 AM
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
Chris Blount
Mar 18, 08:19 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
kugino
Sep 20, 02:18 AM
I hate to be the first to post a negative but here it is. I don't think this will be overly expensive, but I also think we will be underwhelmed with it's features. Wireless is not that important to me. There are many wires back there already. It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod. If it cannot browse my my mac or firedrive, cannot stream from them, cannot play .avi, .wmw, .rm or VCD, then it will not replace my 4 year old xbox. Which itself has a 120Gig drive and a remote. Unless we are all sorely mistaken about what iTV will end up being, and it ends up adding these features (as someone above me noted, hoping Apple would read this forum) I will wait. Honestly, I am far more excited over the prospect of the MacBook Pros hopefully switching to Core 2 Duos before year end. Then I will have a much more powerful machine slung to my firedrive, router, xbox and tv. :)
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
dude, do a little research before droning on and on with misinformation. many of your concerns were addressed by steve in the keynote and by reading some of the other threads on the subject. :rolleyes:
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
xlambodog
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
To start off, I do not want to get intimate with the moral aspect of this. Everyone has their opinion.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, I know who that is! He wrote lots of scripture (unlike Jesus):
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
Oh the day divides the night
Night divides the day
Try to run
Try to hide
Break on through to
The other side
And the verse that everyone would do well to heed,
Show me the way to the next whiskey bar
Heretic! That is not the image of your false prophet.
TwinCities Dan
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
That is an interesting idea, but Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) has survived 122 years of business... ;)
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
That is an interesting idea, but Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) has survived 122 years of business... ;)
dante@sisna.com
Oct 29, 02:44 AM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
DrGruv1
Sep 26, 02:37 PM
Quad-core Clovertown server CPUs to appear on November 16
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
Intel will announce two-way quad-core server Clovertown processors, which will be marketed under the Xeon 5300-series name, on November 16, according to Taiwan-based motherboard makers. The quad-core Clovertown processors contain two dual-core Woodcrest chips housed in a single package.
The Xeon 5300 CPU family will debut with the Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5345 (2.33GHz/1333MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), E5320 (1.86GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache) and E5310 (1.60GHz/1066MHz FSB/8MB L2 cache), with unit prices ranging from US$455 to US$1,172, indicated the sources.
In addition, Intel is scheduled to launch one-way quad-core Kentsfield processors under the Xeon 3200 lineup in January the makers said. By the third quarter of next year, Intel will launch its four-way quad-core Tigerton CPUs, the makers added.
Rival AMD will announce its first dual-core server processors manufactured using 65-nanometer (65nm) process technology by the first quarter of according to the makers.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060925A5022.html
No comments:
Post a Comment