macnulty
Mar 19, 07:32 AM
Um, you still have to buy the song, he hasn't cracked the DRM, and the user has to use a program other then iTunes to execute. It would seem to me the easiest thing for Apple is to use a more stringent iTunes identifier. After all, all us non-IE users should be familiar with this concept.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 01:23 PM
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Most evangelicals are pretty mainstream.
There's more than one church because there are differences in beliefs that were pointed enough at one time or another to result in schisms. Sometimes very tiny, subtle differences. But few of these groups will accuse each other of not being Christian. You'll find a few groups here and there.
Most evangelicals are pretty mainstream.
There's more than one church because there are differences in beliefs that were pointed enough at one time or another to result in schisms. Sometimes very tiny, subtle differences. But few of these groups will accuse each other of not being Christian. You'll find a few groups here and there.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 28, 09:26 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
The iMacs are taking off the issue has always been support. Apple gives terrible enterprise support and fake roadmaps. It makes it very difficult to justify buying a machine that costs twice as much and comes with zero support.
Doesn't matter to me though I still order them for my clients like crazy.
The iMacs are taking off the issue has always been support. Apple gives terrible enterprise support and fake roadmaps. It makes it very difficult to justify buying a machine that costs twice as much and comes with zero support.
Doesn't matter to me though I still order them for my clients like crazy.
nixd2001
Oct 8, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this.
The floating point instruction set architecture of the x86 (silly stack based thing) is/was a naff design decision. I don't even know whether there are alternative routes to accessing FP ops on an x86 these days, as its ages since I've been interested in that level (tad of compiler writing in my history). [Intel did always work pretty hard to get IEEE FP conformance though, which is more than most other CPU mnfs.]
The limited number of GPRs is also a design flaw that has largely been worked around.
Maybe the best way to get an understanding of what Intel privately thinks is good/bad about x86 ISA is to look at what sorts of x86 instructions get translated into what sort of micro-ops internally - the larger the change, the less Intel like their original decisions.
Gelfin
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:41 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road.
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
emil.lofman
Aug 29, 12:53 PM
I just gave examples in my post. Groups like this want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
I think you've missed something here. Greenpeace did not, infact, state that Apple is solely responsible for killing the environment.
When China and India begins polluting as much as most western countries do per capita, that's when we're in trouble.
I would guess the industries in India and China are exporting quite a lot of goods to the western world, which makes us morally responsible. To make a real bad analogy, a prostitute with no customers is not a prositute.
Greenpeace probably doesn't have much of a chance to raise awareness on environmental issues in either China, a country were there is no freedom of speech, or India, were a large part of the population is preoccupied with being really, really poor and therefore has no time to spare for macrumors.
You seem really intelligent by the way - you'll probably do great in high school.
KingYaba
Aug 29, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:01 PM
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
I wouldn't call Giffords's recovery miraculous.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 09:12 AM
when i got my ibook, which was manufactured in summer-1999 and listed for $1599 us, i got a 300 mhz G3 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 3 GB hard drive, 4 MB agp graphics, and os 9.0
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
stunna
Jul 12, 03:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
gnasher729
Apr 21, 05:25 PM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
As a professional software developer, I can assure you that among people of my profession, the majority use a Macintosh for their private use. In some related professions (product design) it's not the majority, it is everyone. And I'm not not talking about artsy-fartsy type, I am talking about designers who I seriously trust to design products that will pay for my salary for the next few years. In other related professions (QA) I have the impression that more of them use Macs, but that is more anecdotal.
As a professional software developer, I can assure you that among people of my profession, the majority use a Macintosh for their private use. In some related professions (product design) it's not the majority, it is everyone. And I'm not not talking about artsy-fartsy type, I am talking about designers who I seriously trust to design products that will pay for my salary for the next few years. In other related professions (QA) I have the impression that more of them use Macs, but that is more anecdotal.
Mord
Jul 12, 09:01 AM
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
iJohnHenry
Apr 26, 08:26 AM
One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition.
That would not be my word of choice.
Brainwashing or indoctrination comes closer to the mark.
That would not be my word of choice.
Brainwashing or indoctrination comes closer to the mark.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:11 PM
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
I would have liked to have seen her tongue before the priest put the host on it.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
Cromulent
Mar 26, 07:45 PM
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
leekohler
Mar 28, 04:18 AM
I want to be accepted as I am. But my heterosexuality is not who I am. It's not my identity. It's a property I have. If I became gay, the homosexuality wouldn't change me into someone else. I wouldn't become, say, Jussi Bjorling, my favorite singer. But if I did become gay, I would have a property I never had before.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Dude, lay off the communion wine. ;) You're making no sense, seriously.
On this very weird note, I'm going to bed. I've been up too late, but I played hockey earlier tonight and have a difficult time sleeping after, the brain just does not want to shut down, and I'm off all this week getting rid of carryover vacation.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:21 AM
Does this rule apply to non Apple computers and tablets?
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
How are those tablets working out for those companies? I'd say it's pretty much adhering to the "rules" as set out above. If all of their products sold as "well" as their tablets did, those companies would be purged. Not a double standard.
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
How are those tablets working out for those companies? I'd say it's pretty much adhering to the "rules" as set out above. If all of their products sold as "well" as their tablets did, those companies would be purged. Not a double standard.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
sisyphus
Jul 12, 12:35 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
2) All the Mac Pros will have dual Woodcrests and the iMacs will be upgraded to Conroes. I find this unlikely as Steve-o doesn't like "noisy fans" and the extra heat of the Conroes and faster bus chips etc. would cause the fans to come on more often.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc... This is the real machine most people have been clamouring for. A fast unhampered machine that is more than the iMac but less than the Mac Pro (as will be reflected by the price).
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
2) All the Mac Pros will have dual Woodcrests and the iMacs will be upgraded to Conroes. I find this unlikely as Steve-o doesn't like "noisy fans" and the extra heat of the Conroes and faster bus chips etc. would cause the fans to come on more often.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc... This is the real machine most people have been clamouring for. A fast unhampered machine that is more than the iMac but less than the Mac Pro (as will be reflected by the price).
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment