Porchland
Mar 18, 03:06 PM
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
...
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
Suggesting that Apple isn't concerned about DRM any further than needed to appease the record labels is ridiculous. Apple doesn't care about the integrity of its business model unless the RIAA is on on its back?
That's like saying Honda doesn't care whether its airbags deploy correctly unless the airbag contract is on its back. A defective product -- whether it's an iTMS track without DRM or a Honda with bad airbags -- isn't good for the manufacturer. Apple needs for its DRM to be good to protect its OWN future revenues through iTMS -- not just the record labels' profits.
Sydde
Mar 14, 12:56 PM
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
So who was it posting the map?
eawmp1
Apr 22, 10:08 PM
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Relax...just being a doubting Thomas, or devil's advocate, if you wish.
One could argue decisions about being an atheist, agnostic, or believer are life altering.
The demographics and worldwide distribution of those who identify themselves as atheist are interesting. There is a likely overlap with those who post here.
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Relax...just being a doubting Thomas, or devil's advocate, if you wish.
One could argue decisions about being an atheist, agnostic, or believer are life altering.
The demographics and worldwide distribution of those who identify themselves as atheist are interesting. There is a likely overlap with those who post here.
takao
Mar 15, 05:07 PM
according to current reports the roof of reactor 4 broke apart/collapsed and two workers are considered missing
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
Blue Velvet
Mar 12, 03:46 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:29 PM
Bah humans in general are eejits.
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
Some, but otherwise I cannot fault your abuse of English. ;)
Except for you and me ...... and I'm not totally sure about you. :p
Wilbah
May 5, 12:09 PM
iphone user since day 1.. I was verizon prior.. I live in central NJ, commute into NYC.. my service is so awful that I no longer talk on the phone.. seriously, my communication habits have changed.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
woodbine
Apr 13, 03:03 AM
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
yg17
Mar 11, 08:53 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Yes, twat is used over here quite a bit. Wank, not so much though.
devman
Sep 21, 05:01 AM
eyeHome does not support HD and it never will. I got this in an email directly from Elgato. That is the biggest difference. Also, the general consensus is that eyeHome is not in the same league of robustness/intuitiveness as other elgato products or Apple products. eyeHome cannot even play back eyeTV 500 , eyeTV Hybrid recordings.
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
He also hinted that, sometime down the line, Apple may improve its iTV and digital media offerings to include HD content.
It features "DVD quality, not HD quality at this point," he said.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
He also hinted that, sometime down the line, Apple may improve its iTV and digital media offerings to include HD content.
It features "DVD quality, not HD quality at this point," he said.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
d0minick
Mar 18, 06:02 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
You did pay for the amount of data you signed for!
reel2reel
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
That's awesome.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
Humans can be some nasty creatures.
Yep, this hate is dying off. Demographics are destiny. Younger people, writ large, are not homophobic or anti-gay.
But they're still pretty good at hating and excluding for other reasons. Some things never change, unfortunately.
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 12:04 AM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
840quadra
Apr 28, 10:50 AM
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I still use a classic style iPod too, I even said that in the post you quoted.
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Multifunction devices (PDAs & Phones) existed during the peak of iPod popularity, however they were not sought after by the masses in the way the iPod was. Even now Apple still offers a clickwheel iPod alongside the Touch / iPhone. Because of that, you can't exactly say it has been replaced, when it is still offered (along with other smaller iPod music player offerings).
People have been migrating away from the dedicated iPod MP3 player, since the introduction of the iPhone, and Android devices. Many of us still buy and use classic iPod music players, but it is becoming more of an enthusiast / niche market than it is mainstream.
You may not want to call it a Fad even though it meets many of the criteria, which is fine. I am only one person with one opinion.
Like it or not, the iPod fad (or era) is drawing to a close, it is now the turn of the iPhone / Touch (or Android) and iPad (or Tablet).
I still use a classic style iPod too, I even said that in the post you quoted.
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Multifunction devices (PDAs & Phones) existed during the peak of iPod popularity, however they were not sought after by the masses in the way the iPod was. Even now Apple still offers a clickwheel iPod alongside the Touch / iPhone. Because of that, you can't exactly say it has been replaced, when it is still offered (along with other smaller iPod music player offerings).
People have been migrating away from the dedicated iPod MP3 player, since the introduction of the iPhone, and Android devices. Many of us still buy and use classic iPod music players, but it is becoming more of an enthusiast / niche market than it is mainstream.
You may not want to call it a Fad even though it meets many of the criteria, which is fine. I am only one person with one opinion.
Like it or not, the iPod fad (or era) is drawing to a close, it is now the turn of the iPhone / Touch (or Android) and iPad (or Tablet).
Huntn
Apr 22, 09:27 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
RichP
Oct 25, 09:40 AM
Well, to bring this back on topic, and talk more about screens; I have a G5 right now that can run one 30"; I am going to get a Macpro once Adobe goes universal, and at that time, we should have a revisionB Macpro, perhaps with more cores. Macpro, for the performance, once it was loaded with memory, just wasnt a good deal compared to a used G5 2.7 I found on ebay (6GB of RAM!)
I run 2 20"s right now, and really like dual screen. Reason being is one display is hooked to my G5, the other is hooked to a KVM that goes between the G5 and my PC. I use the PC only for CAD, and with programs like Alias, there is so much screen real estate taken with menus, it would be nice to have a little more space. I would just go with 2 apple 23" screens, but their color is just horrible, and my experience is tainted from them. If I get a 30", then I need to also get an expensive dualink DVI KVM, but the dell is so less expensive, getting that over the apple would completely offset the cost of the switch.
Thanks for the info guys, I was trying to figure out how I should have the screen setup; you dont want to sit so close to it that you need to move your eyes around alot to see things, that can be very fatiguing.
I run 2 20"s right now, and really like dual screen. Reason being is one display is hooked to my G5, the other is hooked to a KVM that goes between the G5 and my PC. I use the PC only for CAD, and with programs like Alias, there is so much screen real estate taken with menus, it would be nice to have a little more space. I would just go with 2 apple 23" screens, but their color is just horrible, and my experience is tainted from them. If I get a 30", then I need to also get an expensive dualink DVI KVM, but the dell is so less expensive, getting that over the apple would completely offset the cost of the switch.
Thanks for the info guys, I was trying to figure out how I should have the screen setup; you dont want to sit so close to it that you need to move your eyes around alot to see things, that can be very fatiguing.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:45 PM
Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
slu
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I agree with most of the comments thus far.
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
JediZenMaster
May 6, 10:13 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
True and look at the European Carriers like 02 that have the iphone. They have the same issue. And if verizon ever gets the iphone they will have the same issue too.
True and look at the European Carriers like 02 that have the iphone. They have the same issue. And if verizon ever gets the iphone they will have the same issue too.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
TEG
Sep 20, 12:19 PM
ya, seems unlikely the hard drive is for DVR functionality [as someone pointed out, there are no video inputs ont the device]... but the hard drive could prove useful in other ways.
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
That is an awesome Idea. Hopefully the iTV will be able to be integrated with the TiVo. Maybe being an external HD if needed. I just don't want Apple to go into the DVR business, because TiVo already did it right, and I don't think anyone could improve on it. I would like to see a software update for the TiVo that changes the encoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 so when they launch TiVo to Go for Mac, you are 90% closer to being able to use the video in other places, plus it could improve video quality with smaller file sizes.
TEG