0-172
Apr 9, 10:54 AM
When discussing Nintendo, you guys aren't taking into account DSiWare and soon 3DSWare. They're a means of digitally distributing little games, much like those of iOS, for cheaper prices (pretty much maxing out at $10).
Although they obviously still rely on the sale of physical games, Nintendo is beginning to adapt to this cheaper, digital means of sale.
Although they obviously still rely on the sale of physical games, Nintendo is beginning to adapt to this cheaper, digital means of sale.
benixau
Oct 9, 07:39 AM
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:15 PM
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
Of course you never used that particular phrase. You did claim that you couldn't take an Adobe "pro" seriously. What particular industry do you work in where that's the case?
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:25 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
In this video, there's a doctor who may doubt that Giffords got a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgVnjJLarwk
c.hilding
Oct 27, 01:14 AM
You are right Multimedia, it's too early to worry about the FSB, we don't even know what rate they've put it at yet. ;)
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 11:03 PM
I just don't really get why people who label themselves agnostic try to separate themselves from Atheists. Almost no atheist wouldn't fit under the aboved defined 'gnostic atheist' label. We're all in the same boat here.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
I would think most atheists don't give it much thought, like I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about unicorns or orbiting teapots. I doubt anyone could come up with proof of non-existence that was convincing.
Agnostics may be giving it more thought or perhaps spending more time thinking about these things.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
nbs2
Aug 29, 12:06 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
austin610
Feb 22, 09:44 PM
Surpass? I don't think so. Catching up.... maybe!:D
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
sblasl
Oct 28, 06:16 PM
What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Right now newegg.com has them at $229.99 with a $30.00 rebate. Must be purchased by October 31, 2006. That makes it $199.99. I've paid more for less in my life time.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136011
On my current G5, my boot drive is a striped raid with the following:
2 - SEAGATE ST336607LW 10,000 RPM drives, for speeds up to 320MB/s
1 - ATTO,ExpressPCIProUL4D
http://www.attotech.com/ultra4s.html
1 - Granite Digital SCSIVue Custom RAID Case #3300 w/ Granite Digital SCSI VueTeflon Gold Diagnostic Ultra Cable #6960
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg03_cases.htm
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg09_xtcables.htm
The raid gives me 68.1 GB of storage. I boot from this drive and have all of my applications on it. Storage for all music, videos, & pictures are kept on 2 - Maxtor 7Y250M0 250 GB drives that are internal.
I have been spoiled with this setup but unfortunately, when I move to the Mac Pro I won't be able to use the SCSI setup.
If anyone wants to buy this setup let me know.
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Right now newegg.com has them at $229.99 with a $30.00 rebate. Must be purchased by October 31, 2006. That makes it $199.99. I've paid more for less in my life time.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136011
On my current G5, my boot drive is a striped raid with the following:
2 - SEAGATE ST336607LW 10,000 RPM drives, for speeds up to 320MB/s
1 - ATTO,ExpressPCIProUL4D
http://www.attotech.com/ultra4s.html
1 - Granite Digital SCSIVue Custom RAID Case #3300 w/ Granite Digital SCSI VueTeflon Gold Diagnostic Ultra Cable #6960
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg03_cases.htm
http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg09_xtcables.htm
The raid gives me 68.1 GB of storage. I boot from this drive and have all of my applications on it. Storage for all music, videos, & pictures are kept on 2 - Maxtor 7Y250M0 250 GB drives that are internal.
I have been spoiled with this setup but unfortunately, when I move to the Mac Pro I won't be able to use the SCSI setup.
If anyone wants to buy this setup let me know.
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 11:30 AM
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:18 PM
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 12:44 PM
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
there are people who think the government should make MORE laws about sexual behavior ....here's one who is in favor of making heterosexual relations outside of marriage illegal. :eek:
Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee
Don Haase was active for years as advocate for socially conservative issues.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.....
link (http://www.adn.com/2011/03/23/1772266/senate-panel-questions-judicial.html)
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
gnasher729
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
There was a bit of trouble a while ago because some major companies (I think Apple, Google, and someone else) apparently had a "no poaching" agreement, agreeing that they wouldn't make job offers to people employed by the other company. That is considered bad, because it means someone say employed by Google for $100,000 a year can't get a job offer from Apple for $110,000 a year, so salaries are kept down. While companies may not like poaching, employees like it.
And what makes you say "these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding..." ? The company I work for is doing very well, but if someone else offered me a much higher salary, or better career opportunities, or much better working conditions, or a much more interesting job, why wouldn't I consider that?
CalBoy
Apr 22, 11:17 PM
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
ArnehWB
Sep 26, 08:31 AM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
Bibulous
Sep 20, 12:48 AM
I hope it will work with all Front Row files, not just iTunes content.
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar