DemSpursBro
Apr 9, 01:23 AM
You can't cut and paste, only copy and paste.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
MacRumors
Sep 12, 03:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:38 AM
Many of the applications that graphics, audio, and video producers use do take advantage of the extra power. It just happens differently than one might think -- it has via better multitasking. It is up to the user to learn how to use quad and eight core boxes to improve production.
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
We've been learning this technique for the past year with PowerMac Quad Core and are blown away by how much more work we accomplish.
DJOOn the video front, crushing video down to mp4 files is a two stage process which each use 3-4 cores. Hosing an 8-core Mac Pro will be no problem. Those of you who think that 8-cores is a lot and crazy have no experience with multi-core applications and the idea of running multiple instances of even single core applications simultaneously. You are going to have to begin to RETHINK how you execute your workflow - i.e. the ORDER in which you initiate processes - to get the most bang out of an 8-core Mac Pro and to begin learning how to get more work done in far less time than you do today.
I could not disagree with you more. Our G5 and Mac Pro Quads give us an extra production hour, at least, per day, using many of the apps you mentioned above. It is up to the user the know how to push these boxes.
Just today, we processed 8.7 Gig of Photoshop documents (high res art scans from a lambda flatbed of 4x8 foot originals at 300 dpi -- i know the artist was crazy, but it is what we GOT.) -- We open all this data over 20 docs, changed RGB to CMYK, adjusted color, resized to a normal size, sharpened, added masks and saved. We did all this in 40 minutes -- that is 2 minutes per average size doc of 600MB.
Are you really going to tell me that my G5 Dual 2.7 could hang like this.
No Way -- We had activity monitor open -- Photoshop used an average of 72% off ALL FOUR PROCESSORS.
We did use safari at the same time to download a template for the art book (250 MG) and we had a DVD ripping via Mac the Ripper as well.
Quad Core Rules. Soon to be OCTO.Thank you for both those posts. I have felt pretty alone on these 8-core threads thus far. Glad to finally see someone else who understands and can explain so well why 8-cores is still not going to be enough joining in on these discussions.
Any of you who don't think a 16-core Mac Pro will be a hit in a year can really only be into word processing. :p
IgnatiusTheKing
Aug 23, 02:09 PM
I almost never drop calls anymore.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:37 AM
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Carl Spackler
Sep 12, 04:29 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 10:05 AM
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
takao
Mar 13, 04:04 PM
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
MacAztec
Oct 7, 08:07 PM
Unfair Test.
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
They are using Apples latest and greatest processor.
The P4 has 2.6GHz out now...
AMD has like 2.2GHz out...
deannnnn
May 6, 10:07 PM
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
It's difficult for people who do not live in New York City to understand this issue. You should be happy that your iPhone works for you where you live, not upset at people who have difficulties with it.
SRSound
Oct 29, 10:05 AM
I think what that statement is getting at is that they will definitely not be released any sooner than mid-November. (I'm assuming that's when they will be officially "released".) But how soon afterwards, you're right, is anyone's guess. Just look at what Apple has done with the C2D chips. It took them a little longer than some of its competitors to include them in the MBPs, and we still don't have them in the MacBooks. (Of course, we may never see them in the MacBooks, until Santa Rosa, who knows... :o)
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
I think I remember a very long wait time for shipments when the Mac Pro was first announced. Is it likely we'll see another extensive wait time once they accept orders, even IF they announce Octo-cores in mid November? Also, on a completely different note, will this processor upgrade effect programs that worked on woodcrest processors? As in, is there a chance a program that works on woodcrest wont work on clovertown?
CQd44
May 2, 09:16 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
grue
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
I'm the angriest Mac user / professional FCP user I know, and even I'm blown away. Are there things I'm curious to see how they work out? Sure. But overall� wow.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 09:53 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 10:43 AM
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Multimedia
Sep 28, 04:40 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
AppliedVisual
Nov 1, 06:35 PM
Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
Dbrown
Apr 21, 11:00 AM
i don't have an iphone, but i do have an ipod touch. My wife has an android phone. I can't use her phone well but i feel i could use an iphone with zero learning curve just because everything is so consistent across apple mobile devices. That's what i like about apple devices. No big surprises.
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than gmail.
Dale
pebkac!
The manual for her phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than gmail.
Dale
pebkac!
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
IanC
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
I appreciate what DVD Jon did to help Linux owners watch dvds, but this is going to far. I hope Apple come up with a fix for this, and soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment