rezenclowd3
Jan 3, 03:19 AM
Just picked up this on Saturday:
(Sold my 96 Audi A4 2.8L 3 weeks ago. I must say, I do NOT recommend Audi engines, even though I had no problems.)
Vita for Target sandals
Can you guess which sandal
Dolce Vita for Target Rope
Look for less – Dolce Vita
Dolce Vita Platform Sandals
DV by Dolce Vita sandal.
Dolce Vita for Target Rope
These Women#39;s Dolce Vita for
Dolce Vita for Target - Cork
Dolce Vita Victoria Sandals
Dolce Vita for Target® Cork
Dolce Vita for Target® Cork
Women#39;s Dolce Vita for Target®
Women#39;s Dolce Vita for Target®
Rope Wedge Sandals (Dolce Vita
Love my new sandals.
Sandals: Dolce Vita
Dress: Dolce Vita
(Sold my 96 Audi A4 2.8L 3 weeks ago. I must say, I do NOT recommend Audi engines, even though I had no problems.)
Zelnaga
Feb 18, 03:20 PM
No major additions, just an iPad, TrackPad and a canvas of SJ (yes am a fanboi lol)
Apologies images taken using iPhone in low light
<SNIP>
Sweet. What stand do you have for your iPad?
Apologies images taken using iPhone in low light
<SNIP>
Sweet. What stand do you have for your iPad?
sparksinspace
Sep 6, 11:23 AM
just bought a core solo mac mini a week ago.. kind of weird I did the same when the iBooks were moved go G4 a while back, a couple of weeks earlier I had bought a G3 model..
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
oh well.. it's still a great machine. with a bit more memory it'll do just fine as the build machine for our software.
Eorlas
Mar 23, 02:03 AM
Demanding a larger hard drive so that large size songs that are uncompressed and run at a higher bit rate becomes a moot point. A person's ears are only going to be able to tell the difference in quality up to a certain point. And that threshold becomes even more insignificant with more headphone listening time depending on how loud the individual listens to their music.
There will always be people that say that they can tell the difference, but in all honesty, they can't.
There will always be people that say that they can tell the difference, but in all honesty, they can't.
Kulman
Mar 22, 05:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
Uh, without the iPod Classic, there would be no iPhone, iPod Nano, iPad, or iTouch. Don't knock down what brought you up!
Where's the Zune now??? Dead
Veldek
Aug 25, 05:15 AM
I hope the same thing, was planning on buying one to.
Is Germany going to raise their taxes ?? To how much 20% 21% Like in Belgium ... Way too high :rolleyes:
.C.They are raising from 16% to 19% starting in 2007. :(
Is Germany going to raise their taxes ?? To how much 20% 21% Like in Belgium ... Way too high :rolleyes:
.C.They are raising from 16% to 19% starting in 2007. :(
goobot
Apr 2, 09:13 PM
so basically they are telling us the only difference is that it is faster lighter and thinner and we should buy a new one for that. O ya we got a back camera that is useless to 99% of us and a front for facetime which again almost no one uses.
gikku
Jan 2, 05:25 AM
Leopard for G3s, please.
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
A new low end range of desktops and notebooks with a core solo chip, for volume sales.
Mac Mini C2D 2.33Ghz
An iMac with an adjustable screen height, with dual C2D chips.
A Macbook with a proper keys on the board.
A new low end range of desktops and notebooks with a core solo chip, for volume sales.
Mac Mini C2D 2.33Ghz
cleanup
Nov 25, 11:30 PM
My new ride:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00453/pg-4-popemobile-1-p_453109s.jpg
Better be safe than sorry, right Benguitar? :)
Although, in all honesty, my last purchase:
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37416_04_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/34838_01_d.jpg
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37058_01_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/42900_04_d.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00453/pg-4-popemobile-1-p_453109s.jpg
Better be safe than sorry, right Benguitar? :)
Although, in all honesty, my last purchase:
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37416_04_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/34838_01_d.jpg
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37058_01_d.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/42900_04_d.jpg
tychay
Nov 28, 08:09 PM
I have no idea where you got that one from. The original Xbox never made a profit. Microsoft is deliberately selling the Xbox 360 at a loss to capture marketshare. However, the PS3 and Ninetindo Wii are selling like hotcakes, are latest big things, and have the buzz. The best laid plans ...
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
I think the first statement is correct or close to it. They may have had a single profitable quarter when Halo 2 was released. I'm not sure because they bury games in a Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division. Which includes their smartphone stuff (now that it has stopped bleeding money) and their profitable and acclaimed mice, keyboards, and other stuff (all manufactured by other companies, sort of like Dell, but with a nicer design).
The second part I believe is now wrong. I think the XBox 360 is no longer a loss lead, though that might change as there is some speculation that they will be dropping the price to undercut Sony soon. I believe the fact that it is no longer a loss lead is causing a confounding with the "360 is profitable" commentaries here.
Another commenter mentioned how smart it was was the XBox had a hard drive on it. I’d say if it is so smart why did Microsoft remove it in the base model 360? I’ll point out that this happened because the price of hard drives do not get any cheaper! In fact the price of commodity hardware design doesn’t get any cheaper! Huh? Hard drives get bigger, not cheaper. Processors and chips get more powerful, not cheaper.
What went on is that successive iterations of the Playstation and Playstation 2 would allow Sony to combine chips to reduce the price (and make smaller PSOne and slim-cased Playstation 2). This outlet wasn't available to Microsoft because of their design which is why the XBox was a losing money for it's entire run and Sony played games by dropping their price before it ever turned a profit.
Those two things are "of a piece". While commodity hardware was an interesting idea, it was a failure. Which is why the XBox 360 is not built from commodity PC hardware. The hard drives are a necessary evil of the "Live" strategy so they're left in as an option and bundled with the Playstation 3. That's why these 6G consoles are expensive and not dropping in price fast.
Right now all this is moot since the thing to watch is the Sony gamble on a blue laser. Obviously it will get cheaper fast, but the question is how fast and how cheap? The horrible yields on the Cell processor isn't helping things.
Currently, the XBox 360 has sold very consistently at around 1.5 million units a quarter. The XMas quarter last year had supply issues and only sold .9 million units. That's hardly dominating. In fact, I think the Playstation 2 outsold the 360 in each of those quarters even though the device is six years old. Let's put some numbers here. Last year over 100 million Playstation 2’s had been sold, six months ago, they were selling 380k/month. The XBox 360 sold 6 million units since it's introduction over a year ago, six months ago they were selling 300k/month, they had fixed the channel problems that plagued the release.
Consider this: Nintendo sold 600,000 Wiis in the last eight days. Given the scarcity of the Playstation 3 and the popularity and addictiveness of WiiSports and Zelda, they should easily crush that .9 million opening quarter of the 360. And consider this: each unit at a profit with a number of titles putting money directly in Nintendo's pocket.
I'm not claiming that the Wii will beat the 360. I'm just pointing out that according to sales numbers, the 360 is no iPod, is not trending to an iPod, will never be an iPod. The iPod sits on 75% market share. The closest thing to an iPod in the entertainment market is the Playstation 2.
Which is a big distraction from the point. And what is the point? That the XBox is a bad analogy. It is best to consider their Windows CE->Smartphone Microsoft play to see that the Zune is a bad idea. How many years and failed ideas have there been (Windows CE, Windows Mobile, PocketPC, etc. etc.)? How many billions sunk (some years more than the entire capitalization of the PDA market)? How much marketshare? 6% of smartphones, 60% of the dead-end PDA market, and most of the dead ATM teller market (because IBM did a phased pull out, not because Microsoft "won"). And even those markets are being eaten by Linux faster than Windows.
The only thing we can learn from the XBox and Microsoft is that Microsoft pees on their partners (NVidia) at the earliest opportunity. But we already knew that as soon as the Zune didn't support Plays For Sure.
dime21
Apr 20, 09:26 PM
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Bromac
Sep 27, 11:05 AM
I donot know what i can say
Get the 4. It's awsome!!!!!Everybody gets a cover for there iphone anyways. You will not be disappointed.
Get the 4. It's awsome!!!!!Everybody gets a cover for there iphone anyways. You will not be disappointed.
Doctor Q
Sep 1, 02:03 PM
How big and small an iMac would consumers actually want? 50"? 10"?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
Will we eventually see an ad with Verne Troyer and Yao Ming working side-by-side on their big and small desktop Macintoshes?
mi5moav
Jul 19, 07:02 PM
Well, during 2000-2001 that was a long waiting period for OSX... and then of course during the Q4 of 2001 we had 9-11
Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
Cliff3
Jan 27, 07:21 PM
http://www.coates3.com/gallery2/d/44261-1/painted+grill-0270.jpg
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
I put some painted grills on it yesterday, and had pre- and post-cat O2 sensors installed along with the fuel filter today. It looks pretty good for a car with 103k miles on the odo (I'm the original owner).
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 11:59 AM
Why do you even bother trolling an Apple forum?
It's fun reading about people who try to justify privacy invasion because Apple does it but would be raising a ruckus if it was Microsoft or anyone else. The double standard and blind following is funny.
It's fun reading about people who try to justify privacy invasion because Apple does it but would be raising a ruckus if it was Microsoft or anyone else. The double standard and blind following is funny.
AppliedVisual
Nov 15, 06:10 PM
This is not true at all. Multi-threading often introduces more problems such as race conditions, deadlocks, pipeline starvations, memory leaks, cache coherency problems. Further more, multithreaded apps are harder and take longer to debug. Also, using threads without good reason too is not efficient (context swtiching) and can cause problems (thread priorities) with other apps running. This is because threads can not yield to other threads and block if such an undesirable condition like a deadlock exists.. Like on Windows when one app has a non responsive thread and the whole system hangs.. Or like when Finder sucks and locks everything..
Yes, yes, all true... Somewhat. True in the sense of how a lot of programmers approach current threading problems and various development theories. And we're currently limited by our development tools and the operating systems to a certain degree.
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
Yes, but so many things behave differently from one platform to another. How is writing a low-level thread management system for each platform different than writing the core functions of a 3D graphics engine that can run cross-platform and take advantage of various differences or feature - OpenGL, Direct3D, 3DNow, etc.. Cross-platform development always has its issues as do using different development tools. You obviously know this as do many programmers, so what's the point of the doom and gloom? It's always been this way and is just a part of the development process.
Massively multithreaded apps do exist and have been written for various platforms over the years. Here in Windows and OSX land programmers go into panic mode when multithreading is mentioned. Yet SGI had Irix scaled to 256 CPUs and visulization apps utilizing multithreading on individual systems as well as across cluster nodes and displaying images built by multiple graphics pipes using multithreaded OpenGL that could scale from 1 to 16 graphics pipes and any number of CPUs.
Anyway, my whole point is that the software industry will eventually have to tackle this problem head on and will overcome it. I just don't understand the current resistance and denial exhibited by so many "developers". The hardware is coming, in many situations it's already here... Why fight it? It's time to look at threads in a new light (for many). Upcoming CPU roadmaps place newer quad-core chips in the market in mid '07 with common Xeon and Opteron workstations/servers moving to quad-CPU (16-core) with 45nm process and lower wattage. 8-core CPUs to arrive in '08, 12 and 16 cores per CPU in late '08 or early '09...
MHz isn't increasing and the consumer still wants the next version of their game or video editor to run twice as fast with more features on the new stystem they just bought, which now has 32 cores instead of 18 cores and they'll switch to a competitor's product if you take more than two or three months to ship your software update... What do you do?
Yes, yes, all true... Somewhat. True in the sense of how a lot of programmers approach current threading problems and various development theories. And we're currently limited by our development tools and the operating systems to a certain degree.
Also, multithreading behaves differently on different platforms with different language environments. Java threading might behave differently than p-threads (C-based) on the same system (OS X).. I am a prfessional developer etc..
Yes, but so many things behave differently from one platform to another. How is writing a low-level thread management system for each platform different than writing the core functions of a 3D graphics engine that can run cross-platform and take advantage of various differences or feature - OpenGL, Direct3D, 3DNow, etc.. Cross-platform development always has its issues as do using different development tools. You obviously know this as do many programmers, so what's the point of the doom and gloom? It's always been this way and is just a part of the development process.
Massively multithreaded apps do exist and have been written for various platforms over the years. Here in Windows and OSX land programmers go into panic mode when multithreading is mentioned. Yet SGI had Irix scaled to 256 CPUs and visulization apps utilizing multithreading on individual systems as well as across cluster nodes and displaying images built by multiple graphics pipes using multithreaded OpenGL that could scale from 1 to 16 graphics pipes and any number of CPUs.
Anyway, my whole point is that the software industry will eventually have to tackle this problem head on and will overcome it. I just don't understand the current resistance and denial exhibited by so many "developers". The hardware is coming, in many situations it's already here... Why fight it? It's time to look at threads in a new light (for many). Upcoming CPU roadmaps place newer quad-core chips in the market in mid '07 with common Xeon and Opteron workstations/servers moving to quad-CPU (16-core) with 45nm process and lower wattage. 8-core CPUs to arrive in '08, 12 and 16 cores per CPU in late '08 or early '09...
MHz isn't increasing and the consumer still wants the next version of their game or video editor to run twice as fast with more features on the new stystem they just bought, which now has 32 cores instead of 18 cores and they'll switch to a competitor's product if you take more than two or three months to ship your software update... What do you do?
bigandy
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
i think it's a good move - all dual core. nuff said.
kadajawi
Aug 30, 04:06 PM
Your prices really hurt. A very basic Core Solo is around $750 here.
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
Anyway I need to get a new computer for my parents really soon... can't really afford to wait for an upgrade (which would be nice, although not neccessary). How likely is the upgrade? Or maybe I should build them a PC... hm. Would be cheaper, as fast as the Mac, much better equipped and not that much bigger.
What I would love to see though wouldn't be a Mac not that Mini, but something in a real case, without compromising for size. Put in the cheapest Intel CPU that is up to date, so you can toss in any faster CPU. Or better let the customer decide. Basic version would have a cheap CPU, maybe even a Celeron. Onboard graphics (but PCIx slot!). Accept ordinary disc drives, maybe even deliver without. Minimum amount of RAM... as low as 256 MB? Do anything to keep prices low, but give the machine a good case, size something around Mac Pro, maybe a bit smaller. Midi Tower size. Can be white plastic for example, should be stylish. Important are only the casing and the board, so the user can upgrade. That would really be something for switchers... they could simply plug in their old hardware (please at least driver support for all ATI and nVidia cards, the most important sound cards (Creative and VIA Envy24* I guess)). Ok, I think that will only stay a dream :(
eenu
Aug 16, 11:52 AM
Also, I think this may iimpact one of the features I use most, Lib sharing at home.
there is a destinct difference between 'sharing' and 'synching'.
there is a destinct difference between 'sharing' and 'synching'.
SFStateStudent
Sep 14, 01:55 PM
Oh, great! We listen to a company that says "all generic brand foods taste the same as brand name foods!" I'm waiting to hear what Ralph Nader says...ROFL :p
blakdragun
Feb 24, 06:43 PM
Here's my mbp setup.
nice clean setup.
nice clean setup.
LERsince1991
Feb 27, 11:57 AM
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/944/mg4574.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/386/mg4581.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4362/mg4577d.jpg
Equipment list:
Apple 13" Macbook (late 2008) - 2.4Ghz, 500gb HD, 4Gb RAM
Apple iPhone 4
Apple Airport express running airtunes
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Universal Dock
Apple remote
Acer Monitor 22" White
Belkin 7 USB hub powered
Bowers & Wilkins 685's
Chord Carnival Silverscreen speaker cable with banana plugs
Canon 400d + accessories
Dell Inspiron 1501 - To multi-task with windows (on bookshelf)
HP Printer
Kenwood A-82 Stereo Integrated Amplifier (Acquired from dads old setup)
Sennheiser Headphones HD 205
Wacom Intuos 3 A4 wide
Western Digital My Book 1Tb
Running Plex Media Centre and iTunes for media.
Recently came across Plex Media Centre on here - brilliant and free!
Mostly 1080p video and lossless audio.
350 Movies, 10,000 songs, 15,000 photos & lots of TV programs...
Waiting on a delivery of some braided wire sleeving to hide the ton of wires going to the amp better. Pretty neatly hidden the equipment around the room. :) :) :)
Considering getting a new Amp - probably a surround amp but unsure as the music quality will drop opposed to a stereo hifi amp.
Other option is an xbox 360?
Past 2008
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2913/dsc03129a.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/386/mg4581.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4362/mg4577d.jpg
Equipment list:
Apple 13" Macbook (late 2008) - 2.4Ghz, 500gb HD, 4Gb RAM
Apple iPhone 4
Apple Airport express running airtunes
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Universal Dock
Apple remote
Acer Monitor 22" White
Belkin 7 USB hub powered
Bowers & Wilkins 685's
Chord Carnival Silverscreen speaker cable with banana plugs
Canon 400d + accessories
Dell Inspiron 1501 - To multi-task with windows (on bookshelf)
HP Printer
Kenwood A-82 Stereo Integrated Amplifier (Acquired from dads old setup)
Sennheiser Headphones HD 205
Wacom Intuos 3 A4 wide
Western Digital My Book 1Tb
Running Plex Media Centre and iTunes for media.
Recently came across Plex Media Centre on here - brilliant and free!
Mostly 1080p video and lossless audio.
350 Movies, 10,000 songs, 15,000 photos & lots of TV programs...
Waiting on a delivery of some braided wire sleeving to hide the ton of wires going to the amp better. Pretty neatly hidden the equipment around the room. :) :) :)
Considering getting a new Amp - probably a surround amp but unsure as the music quality will drop opposed to a stereo hifi amp.
Other option is an xbox 360?
Past 2008
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2913/dsc03129a.jpg
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה