Will_reed
Jul 11, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.
more...
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
more...
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
more...
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 11:54 AM
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology.
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
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...)
more...
greenstork
Sep 21, 09:55 AM
By next spring, Apple will have the rest of the Media Center - one of the "super-secret" bits of Leopard is a full clone of Microsoft's Media Center Edition, built upon a greatly enhanced Front Row. (And accompanied by a full-featured AV remote.)
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
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.
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
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.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
more...
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
granex
Sep 20, 06:35 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:04 PM
Give an example, please.
Finance -> interest -> Loans
There are "Sharia-compliant" loans.
http://www.lloydstsb.com/current_accounts/islamic_account.asp
Finance -> interest -> Loans
There are "Sharia-compliant" loans.
http://www.lloydstsb.com/current_accounts/islamic_account.asp
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these?
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
more...
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 11:49 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:39 PM
you might want to rethink what I mean by contained ...
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
It's too undefined...
Contained to the reactor?
Contained to the plant?
Contained to the locality?
Contained to the island?
Contained in the hemisphere?
Contained to the Earth?
more...
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:53 PM
its more than just Airport Express for Video, its a TV tunes via the internet and the home network.
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
dudemac
Mar 18, 03:58 PM
To all but a few of the replies so far that seem totally out raged by this,
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
more...
como grupos de cumbia y
more...
6 grupos de cumbia: 1- EL
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
\
First there is no support for itms on linux as it currently stands and this just allows user of linux to purchase songs from the itms and play them on that platform. It also allows someone like me who has a high speed connection at work to purchase music and take it home with me. Yes I have a couple of mac's and an ipod, so my loyalty hasn't changed.
Secoundly this doesn't hack the DRM that apple supplies, however it does violate the EULA, which I don't know anyone that doesn't violate a EULA at least once a day. But that is really a different argument.
Finally why is there no outrage that DRM is not optional or that there hasn't been a standardized format for music. There are reasons why the mini disc failed and it had nothing to do with quality. But it was a propriotary format that needed to be liscencsed. So when looking at the delima of DRM it should be more of a how do we get everything to play everywhere kind of question then just limiting how the user can play/share the music at home. I really hate being limited for "my own good". or more appropriately for the good of a corporation. If WMA beats apple it will only be because they failed to standardize and work within the industry.
more...
Mord
Jul 13, 10:12 AM
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.
more...
jchung
Mar 18, 11:07 AM
Hopefully this will lighten the strain on the network.
The network load claims from AT&T are a bit of a red herring. Don't trust their numbers as they can't get the accounting right on their end anyway. See this long running thread on Apple's forum - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
For those of you on the tiered plan... watch the data usage closely on AT&T's account management site. Make sure it matches what you know of your usage. For many people, AT&T's accounting of data usage does not match their own use of the device.
AT&T MUST fix their accounting before they have a moral leg to stand on to pull a stunt like this.
For those of you complaining about the theft of service, how about the theft of money from the customer by AT&T?
The network load claims from AT&T are a bit of a red herring. Don't trust their numbers as they can't get the accounting right on their end anyway. See this long running thread on Apple's forum - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
For those of you on the tiered plan... watch the data usage closely on AT&T's account management site. Make sure it matches what you know of your usage. For many people, AT&T's accounting of data usage does not match their own use of the device.
AT&T MUST fix their accounting before they have a moral leg to stand on to pull a stunt like this.
For those of you complaining about the theft of service, how about the theft of money from the customer by AT&T?
more...
firestarter
Mar 16, 12:49 PM
^^^ Couple of things back.
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:49 PM
Other than for aeroplanes oil isn't subsidised here in communist Europe - in fact its heavily taxed.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
Coal and Natural Gas aren't subsidised either.
more...
skunk
Mar 28, 12:10 PM
Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.Your arguments are becoming more bizarre by the minute. I have no idea what you are on about. What is this "essence" of which you speak? :confused:
more...
Macky-Mac
Apr 27, 01:11 PM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......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[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......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[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
brianus
Jul 12, 02:09 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
more...
