rugbyboy
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
Now see its a step in the right direction to be sure. There will be features announced which will make it more attractive
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
But unless they add the ability to attach a hard drive or something to hold content on then this isn't going to sell at all.
You probably forget that iTunes TV shows are not available nowhere else in the world except the US. Neither are the films for the time being. so what do we have to watch in the rest of the world? Nada!
I really want this to be better for launch. Lets see what happens eh?
tayldn
Oct 14, 05:38 AM
Completely agree.
Me too. (Gartner know nothing- pure guesses). Having lots of devices is going to be less and less important for Nokia and Android. Apple have shown that form factor is not that important (not as important as it was when everything on the inside was the same)- a good big screen with a thin unit is all most need now that the magic is on the inside. Consumers are not going to want to differentiate with form factor (outside) so much as the cool stuff inside- there's real personalisation going on...inside.
I really used to dislike Apple (broken ipod!). But they know how to treat developers like me. The iPhone is going to take a much bigger share of the market over the next 24 months in the UK where it's coming off exclusivity with o2. The product is better and will stay better for some time. And cheaper untis are going to hit the market very soon making this accessible to everyone. Apple'll let this thing keep growing- in the future, they'll be able to make a loss on the handset...
Reckon they've got 24 months over the other manufacturers. o2 have about 20% of the market. Apple could triple their market share quite quickly simply by going with 2 more operators. Bit rudimentary I know- but why not?
Me too. (Gartner know nothing- pure guesses). Having lots of devices is going to be less and less important for Nokia and Android. Apple have shown that form factor is not that important (not as important as it was when everything on the inside was the same)- a good big screen with a thin unit is all most need now that the magic is on the inside. Consumers are not going to want to differentiate with form factor (outside) so much as the cool stuff inside- there's real personalisation going on...inside.
I really used to dislike Apple (broken ipod!). But they know how to treat developers like me. The iPhone is going to take a much bigger share of the market over the next 24 months in the UK where it's coming off exclusivity with o2. The product is better and will stay better for some time. And cheaper untis are going to hit the market very soon making this accessible to everyone. Apple'll let this thing keep growing- in the future, they'll be able to make a loss on the handset...
Reckon they've got 24 months over the other manufacturers. o2 have about 20% of the market. Apple could triple their market share quite quickly simply by going with 2 more operators. Bit rudimentary I know- but why not?
matticus008
Mar 19, 05:43 PM
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
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.
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:57 AM
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 05:22 PM
I just wanted to point out that "hard drive" is an extremely generic term when it comes to layman's terms regarding computers. [...] I have users that refer to the entire COMPUTER as the "hard drive". There is a very good chance that Iger knows very little about computers and could simply be miscommunicating what he means.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 10:14 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Probably the best place to start is on Apples own site, check out:
http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/what-is-macosx/
I used to run Apple training courses for people switching from Windows to Mac and most people were very surprised how little was different. Remember Windows is a copy of the original Mac OS. Microsoft Word was a Mac app before it was available on a PC! Bill Gates only wrote windows because Apple wouldn't licence their system to run on the IBM systems of the day.
You won't really see the differences until you get to use the Mac yourself. But when you do, the best thing to do is just go with it. Don't try to think - how would a PC do this, just think - if I wanted to do this how would I logically do it and you'll find that 9 x out of 10 that is the way it "just works!"
Apple have designed the Mac OS to be very powerful, but also to get out of your way, there is a reason that they don't supply a manual with the Mac - you don't need one, it really is that good. Most users only scratch the surface of what the Mac OS can do [which is fine] and a lot of PC switchers fail to find the more productive features because they tend to think 'Oh the Mac doesn't do that' when it usually does. You just have to be prepared to change the way you do some things [usually for the better] and you'll be fine.
If you get stuck click the Help menu item and go from there. If you're still suck ask a question here, I'm sure we'll help out if we can.
lifeinhd
Apr 9, 09:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure there are people who game on their iPads but also game on consoles, as well as people who game on iPads but also use their iPads for stuff they used to do mostly on their computers.
electroshock
Oct 8, 07:04 AM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
Hopefully, after the Olympics. ;)
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
Piggie
Apr 28, 01:20 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
It would help the iPad, in the manner you are describing it, if, like an Android/Honeycomb tablet it was a machine in it's own right.
If you look at the way it works, and the way Apple have designed the OS, it's obvious that Apple do not see the iPad as an independent PC, and that Apple themselves see it, and have designed it to be just an extension of your "Real" personal computer.
We are having to rely on 3th party apps to get around Apple's official built in limitations for the device, It's linked totally to just one computer running iTunes, you can't even connect it to say your PC, your friends, PC and your works PC to upload and download data to and from the various machines.
The iPad, as designed, with Apples official software is made so that you set thing up and organise things on your PC or Mac, then you dock your iPad (your mobile extension of your PC) you do a few things, then you come back, re-dock the iPad and it get's backed up.
That's the device that Apple made and how they see it.
It's not the iPad's fault. It's how Apple have made it.
The fact that with some 3rd party apps you can extend it's functionality beyond how Apple see the device is neither here nor there.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
puma1552
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Any idea why the boron is being added?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".
Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.
You're really being out of line.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.
Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.
And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.
You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.
I don't even know why I waste my time.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:07 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times... No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway. SGI hasn't had a new, innovative product in over 10 years. I think the first sign of the end was when SGI released their attempt at Windows workstations back in '98 and they were 1/3 the price and more than twice as powerful as any of their desktop Irix workstations. I ran a quad-CPU SGI540 for several years as a development server and render box with a dual-CPU SGI 340 as a workstation. Picked both of them up second-hand for a steal... Very nice systems, too bad SGI never followed through with support for them.
Sad too because I essentially started doing commercial 3D graphics work on an SGI Indigo. Owned various SGIs over the years - Indy, a few Indigo2 models, O2 (crap), Octane... 1 Origin 200 server. Never considered buying Fuel or Tezro (their last two workstation attempts) -- way too expensive and very much underpowered compared to PC/Mac.
millerb7
May 2, 11:10 AM
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
The fight can't be won, it's useless... there will always be those people who go, "Oh my god... random email, you need my credit card, social security number, and my youngest child? Sure thing! Here you go!"
And then freak out because their bank accounts are all empty and their kid's running off with some 40 year old. It'll never end.
braddouglass
Apr 10, 04:12 PM
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
They're mostly the same, just replace [ctrl]+ with [command] ie [ctrl]+[c] is just [command]+[c]
They're mostly the same, just replace [ctrl]+ with [command] ie [ctrl]+[c] is just [command]+[c]
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:22 AM
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
turnerwing
Oct 16, 04:40 AM
I have had ATT BBERRY for the last two years. I used to have ATT and left because of dropped calls. 6 years later I went back and that was a mistake. The coverage is worse than Verizon and dropped calls are bad. As soon as the Verizon iPhone comes out I am there.
firewood
Apr 28, 11:44 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
Speedy2
Oct 8, 03:46 PM
ya that's why I said "generally", however, Googles main source of revenue is advertising. So all google wants is more and more people with smart phones.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:35 PM
MacCoaster:
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Ok, here we go. You have a program.c so compile it into compiler.o like this:
gcc -c program.c
You may place flags such as -O before -c, or maybe even after it. But certainly before it. Anyway, you have some asm_func.asm, so compile it into asm_func.o like this:
nasm -f elf asm_func.asm
Now, you can link these two .o files like this:
gcc *o -o exe
Which makes an executable named exe (which of course you can change to be whatever you want).
Anyway, do note that the ASM funcs do the integer "benchmark" and not the float one. Also, I think because I overwrite ebx when I am not supposed to, the asm routines tend to cause program segaults after they exit. :) But they still provide a valid result. I could fix that, but whatever.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
Multimedia
Oct 24, 11:53 PM
Damn multimedia, you are making me want that Dell! I just went to the Apple store to check out the 30" (pulled a stool up to the machine from the genius bar and tried to see if I could handle all that real estate). I am usually a sucker for Apple stuff and having matching componentry...but that dell is so CHEAP!
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?Mine are up against the wall at the back of 3 foot deep tables. I have an L table setup with a 6x3 and 8x3 for a total of 9x8 so I'm usually about 3-4 feet away.
Yes the Dells are low priced (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) but they do not look nor feel cheap in any way. I really prefer the black or dark brown frames Dell uses. In the dark the screens float in the dark and the frames do not reflect anything from the screens like the Apple Aluminum frames must. Plus they all have 4-port USB 2 hubs in them and 9-type memory card readers. And they all have elevators so you can adjust the height which Apple's do not. I love the new x07 model Dell Stands which differ from the x05 model stands. And they are all VESA mount compatible as well. I'm gonna get another Dell 30" next Spring or as soon as they hit $999 which ever comes first - watch out Black Friday - November 24. :p
The popularity of 30" monitors has got to be going through the roof right now with these ever rapidly lowering prices happening. I can really see the end of all CRTs now.
CorvusCamenarum
Mar 25, 10:58 AM
Ah yes, the old, call it a privilege when you try to deny it to a class of people and not a right trick. :rolleyes:
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Are you speaking religiously or legally? By law, it is a right. However if the church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their own stupid business.
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.