pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
God of Biscuits
Mar 23, 05:21 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
What you really mean is something more popular. And that's certainly NOT the same as "more user friendly" or "more intuitive".
Are you even an Objective C programmer?
At any rate, what you *are* is the bazillionth person who's said that the key to Apple's success in the future is to do what everyone else is doing.
Riiiiiiight.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 11:04 AM
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
Believe this all you want, when a company like Epic sings the praises of iOS you'd best pay attention. It's had great impact on Nintendo's mobile plans and it terrifies Microsoft (who are praying that Xbox Live on WP7 matters to enough people). When mobile gaming (i.e., on the iPad) is making such inroads into mainstream gaming, it's eventually going to have an effect on the way consumers view mainstream console gaming. In fact, this is guaranteed.
You're holding too fast to the separateness of mobile vs. console. Over the next few years you'll see that separateness blur, and probably faster than anyone would have thought. There will be a definite, palpable melding. It's inevitable.
The App Store opened in July 2008. Now look at what we have in April 2011. It's astounding. And we're already trying to get mobile devices to project games onto HD tvs. It's very, very telling. It doesn't matter how successful it is *right now.* (pretty impressive, actually.) The point is, you can see where we're going with it. When Apple says "move over, Xbox!" they aren't being glib or fulsome. It's a portent. Just a taste of what's to come.
A lot of people around these boards have absolutely NO IDEA what Apple is capable of and what they're about to do to yet another industry. Just sit back and watch.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
rhett7660
Mar 27, 11:44 AM
So much for taking the higher road and preaching everyone is equal etc etc etc. What a bunch of hipacrits.
kas23
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:02 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing...
The Earth coalesced from matter ... not from "nothing".
Life also originated from matter.
Where do you get the idea that these two things sprang from nothing?
The Earth coalesced from matter ... not from "nothing".
Life also originated from matter.
Where do you get the idea that these two things sprang from nothing?
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
kresh
Sep 20, 06:14 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
I was hoping that's the purpose of the USB port. I know many are thinking it's for the iPod, but I'm hoping you can plug a tuner in :)
edit: in addition to the plug-in tuner, I hope it streams backwards to the computer harddrive.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:07 PM
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
leekohler
Apr 24, 05:20 AM
Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
I thought it was 88.2%?
;)
Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 08:12 AM
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
KindredMAC
Sep 12, 08:37 PM
Could this actually be the Mac Home or iHome resurrection of the name of the fake product that came out a couple of years ago????
mcarnes
Oct 25, 10:39 PM
8. Pfft. I'm holding out for 64 cores.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 09:12 AM
when i got my ibook, which was manufactured in summer-1999 and listed for $1599 us, i got a 300 mhz G3 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 3 GB hard drive, 4 MB agp graphics, and os 9.0
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:04 AM
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
See a huge price difference between your systems here and what stock Mac Pros will include. Almost certainly they will contain a single gig of ram, 256MB graphics and maybe a 300GB HDD. All you described will still be BTO.
As for Woodcrest, I was speaking to our Apple rep yesterday and he seemed in agreeance that they would have at least one quad, meaning Woodcrest, (he doesn't have access to official information, but seemed to agree he would be surprised if anything else was in the top end). Apple have also recently placed orders with Intel in preperation for WWDC, (which he seemed to confirm Apple will release the Mac Pro then, as if we were ever in doubt).
My predictions will be as follows:
MacBook - sticks with Yonah until probably MWSF, speed bumps in time for Christmas.
MacBook Pro - Merom as soon as possible, possibly WWDC.
Mac Mini - Yonah for now, Merom once iMac has been updated with new processors. Try to maintain sales as long as possible on cheaper chips.
iMac - Conroe. I know people will say heat, noise etc, but if Apple can do it for a similar price and similar style to the G5, they must do.
Mac xPress - Just put that name for fun, but not sure what it would be called. Conroe anyway and system is cheaper, smaller, lower spec Mac. Pretty much a headless iMac, maybe slightly higher spec for slightly lower price, (no display remember), maybe even a model starting just above the Mini in price. True cube replacement. Look out for it possibly at MWSF.
Mac Pro - Woodcrest in both single and double processors. Conroe would offer similar performance for the singles, but not sure if Apple would mix like that. Possibly dual socket motherboard in all, but single processor allowing later upgrade. WWDC announces G5 PowerMac available until 2nd half 2007 in limited supplies, (for those using apps not yet universal/still a mixture os OSX and classic).
xServe - Woodcrest. Nothing more to be said.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
See a huge price difference between your systems here and what stock Mac Pros will include. Almost certainly they will contain a single gig of ram, 256MB graphics and maybe a 300GB HDD. All you described will still be BTO.
As for Woodcrest, I was speaking to our Apple rep yesterday and he seemed in agreeance that they would have at least one quad, meaning Woodcrest, (he doesn't have access to official information, but seemed to agree he would be surprised if anything else was in the top end). Apple have also recently placed orders with Intel in preperation for WWDC, (which he seemed to confirm Apple will release the Mac Pro then, as if we were ever in doubt).
My predictions will be as follows:
MacBook - sticks with Yonah until probably MWSF, speed bumps in time for Christmas.
MacBook Pro - Merom as soon as possible, possibly WWDC.
Mac Mini - Yonah for now, Merom once iMac has been updated with new processors. Try to maintain sales as long as possible on cheaper chips.
iMac - Conroe. I know people will say heat, noise etc, but if Apple can do it for a similar price and similar style to the G5, they must do.
Mac xPress - Just put that name for fun, but not sure what it would be called. Conroe anyway and system is cheaper, smaller, lower spec Mac. Pretty much a headless iMac, maybe slightly higher spec for slightly lower price, (no display remember), maybe even a model starting just above the Mini in price. True cube replacement. Look out for it possibly at MWSF.
Mac Pro - Woodcrest in both single and double processors. Conroe would offer similar performance for the singles, but not sure if Apple would mix like that. Possibly dual socket motherboard in all, but single processor allowing later upgrade. WWDC announces G5 PowerMac available until 2nd half 2007 in limited supplies, (for those using apps not yet universal/still a mixture os OSX and classic).
xServe - Woodcrest. Nothing more to be said.
rxse7en
Oct 20, 01:30 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
B
B
Fiveos22
Jul 11, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
jonnyb
Apr 15, 09:10 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:12 PM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Homosexuality is a property that Lee has, but he's not his homosexuality. I have Cerebral Palsy. But I'm not identical with it. I'm not even identical to it. The point is that each person differs from each property he has.
