Snowy_River
Jul 28, 10:51 AM
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
Hey, how about the Mac Grande? Or Mac Venti?
Hey, how about the Mac Grande? Or Mac Venti?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 01:26 PM
You do realize that Bush started that right? As for Ford, their European division saved their butts and the jobs lost would have made the recession a lot worse. Yeah, good idea, let it all fail. Maybe we should let the government fail as well eh? They seem to be having monetary issues now.
Who would think I'd support Bush? He's not conservative enough for me, and his administration spent to much.
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
Who would think I'd support Bush? He's not conservative enough for me, and his administration spent to much.
How much did government intervene in business affairs during the Roaring 20's? The government has already failed to do what it should do: It should promote the common good. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Government had this country's best interests at heart when I hear Mrs. Pelosi say that to find out what's in Obamacare, you need to pass it.
I know a lot about alcoholism and codependence because my mother is a nurse who specialized in treating alcoholics and other drug addicts and in counseling them. You don't help an alcoholic by protecting him from the consequences of his actions. The protection can help him make even bigger mistakes. I've seen that happen in many families I know of that include alcoholics. I also know about entitled welfare recipients who abuse social programs by demanding too much from social programs, by getting it, and by defrauding them. I saw the entitlement firsthand when a relative of mine was a landlord who rented houses to welfare recipients. Welfare recipients ruined a house, my relative kept the security deposit, and then the family got the Department of Social Services to put them into a house for twice the rent my relative charged. But the family still had the nerve to complain that my relative had overcharged it.
spencers
Jun 15, 02:29 PM
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
Neat, I'm 22000000xxxxx
Neat, I'm 22000000xxxxx
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:17 AM
Most people use their MBA for browsing, youtube videos, email, office apps and perhaps video conferencing. None of which will be bottlenecked by the Intel IGP. If you're doing something above and beyond this that will be negatively affected by the CPU, you are in fact, the minority.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
Fixed that there for you. ;)
Goes both ways really. It's just that more casual tasks (ie, gaming and watching videos) max out the GPU more than they do the CPU. CPU bottlenecks are usually caused by niche tasks like video editing/raw photo editing/scientific number crunching.
ltcol266845
Aug 26, 04:53 PM
Well, the on advantage of not being able to afford a lappy until next years it that I might a MacBook based on the Santa Rosa platform.
It seems though that Santa Rosa might end up getting delayed... there have been many issues with getting 802.11n finalized, which is an important component to the new platform
It seems though that Santa Rosa might end up getting delayed... there have been many issues with getting 802.11n finalized, which is an important component to the new platform
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 04:35 PM
Don't understand that there needs to be a pissing contest about Xoom OR ipad.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
Why are the Xoom guys even here on a Mac site, to tell us THEIR device is better?
Let's even assume they are right.
Go buy your Xoom and be happy if it does what you want No harm, no foul.
The Apple users buy Apple until something better comes along also as long as it does what they want.
They love the possible integration with their other devices and when that comes to Xoom or something else is better they will switch.
Technology pace is amazingly fast and nobody knows what is next.
the vj
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I asked my father for a toy and he came with a different one... I was the saddest kid on earth.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
BoredomBoy
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
...but people (in general) don't want tablets. They want iPads.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
I would compare it to Christmas for me. My mother-in-law asked my wife what I wanted for Christmas. "Video games," was my wife's answer. No, I didn't want video games, I wanted Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and/or Mass Effect 2.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 10, 07:41 PM
There is a part of me that hopes Apple screws up and dumbs down FCS. This is the only remaining software that keeps me buying expensive Macs. If they turn FCS into a glorified iApp, then I'm dumping my Mac's and moving on to a build your own PC where I can run Linux and all of the industry standard professional apps.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
I think that with this new release of FinalCut, Apple is going to shove a dagger into it's professional line. In the last keynote, Jobs mentioned the "transition from a post-PC" business model. The only way that Apple can devote itself exclusively to iStuff is to wean the professional's away from using their products. Once FCS becomes a new video editing program aimed more for the masses running on iPads, Apple will be able to say that they don't have a need for the pro line of computers anymore. Say goodbye to MacPro anything.
Whatever Apple announces Tuesday is going to be a strong indicator for the future of the professional line. If they announce an amazing FCS 4 for professionals, then we will know they are committed to the long run. However, if they turn FinalCut into some kind of cheesy video editing app for the mass consumer, then you better start rethinking your professional future with Apple - unless you make your money from making crappy youtube videos.
So munch elitism there it's dripping off my screen. Your post is funny b/c when FCP 1.0 was announced the many of "pro" editors of the time gasped b/c it, well, "dumbed down" editing, similar to how Pagemaker 1.0 dumbed down publishing.
What Apple does best, what it's always done best, is define new paradigms. It sounds like that is what may happen on Tues. Clearly, for all your snobbery, you are a horse and buggy driver and not a buyer into the Model T thing. Enjoy your Linux, but physical media is still dying, nonetheless. Editing for the web needs a new set of editing tools. YouTube has a lot of professionally edited material. It's not all cell phone clips.
iCrizzo
Mar 27, 03:09 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how MacRumors threads become marred with personal insults and disrespect� and over computers and OS's�
Revenge of the nerds.
Revenge of the nerds.
bagelche
Apr 5, 09:36 PM
Heh. looks like foidulus had a similar idea. I missed that post. And MattInOz comes in with a reasonable rebuttal and more technical knowledge than I have.
I don't think either foidulus or I were saying they were completely siloed--I'm sure they had some level of access to the A/V code. The question is is it in SL. Possibly.
I don't think either foidulus or I were saying they were completely siloed--I'm sure they had some level of access to the A/V code. The question is is it in SL. Possibly.
gnasher729
Aug 26, 04:12 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
We are talking here about Macintosh buyers, not about idiots.
Just sell Merom as "64 bit", that's twice as much as "32 bit".
We are talking here about Macintosh buyers, not about idiots.
Just sell Merom as "64 bit", that's twice as much as "32 bit".
aricher
Sep 14, 04:49 PM
He's totally mistaken! The Cloverton CPUs will *all* be 64-bits, as Woodcrest (found in current Mac Pros) is. Intel is not going to ever go back to a 32-bit Xeon class CPU.
The difference between Woodcrest and "Tigerton" is that Woodcrest CPUs achieve their "dual core" status by basically placing two complete Xeon CPUs under one outer casing, and making them communicate with each other through the front-side bus on the motherboard.
Cloverton will be the same way, but with 4 cores packed into one casing, instead of just two.
"Tigerton" will finally allow both cores to interconnect with each other through an internal interface built into the CPU, instead of slowing communications down by routing it off one CPU core, through the motherboard's front-side bus, and back onto the other core.
I got this great response this morning from my IT snob:
"Where in that linked article does it say 64bit? I see 65 nm, but not 64 bit. Duct taping two 32 bit cores together may get you Mac 64 bit processing... great for drawing cool pictures."
Anyone have a link that shows that Clovertown is 64 bit? Please help me to defeat this PC IT ogre
The difference between Woodcrest and "Tigerton" is that Woodcrest CPUs achieve their "dual core" status by basically placing two complete Xeon CPUs under one outer casing, and making them communicate with each other through the front-side bus on the motherboard.
Cloverton will be the same way, but with 4 cores packed into one casing, instead of just two.
"Tigerton" will finally allow both cores to interconnect with each other through an internal interface built into the CPU, instead of slowing communications down by routing it off one CPU core, through the motherboard's front-side bus, and back onto the other core.
I got this great response this morning from my IT snob:
"Where in that linked article does it say 64bit? I see 65 nm, but not 64 bit. Duct taping two 32 bit cores together may get you Mac 64 bit processing... great for drawing cool pictures."
Anyone have a link that shows that Clovertown is 64 bit? Please help me to defeat this PC IT ogre
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 07:09 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)
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
How does Rosetta hold back forward progress exactly? It's just small extension for the OS. It's not like it's Classic.
shawnce
Jul 20, 04:47 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.
Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).
Review... roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Road_map)
They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.
Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).
Review... roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Road_map)
They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.
Magrathea
Apr 6, 11:23 PM
Close, but not quite right.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
The Mercury Playback Engine is composed of 3 things:
1. 64 Bit Application
2. Multithreaded Application
3. Processing of some things using CUDA (an NVIDIA card)
If you don't have a CUDA based video card, you still have the Mercury Playback Engine (software) available. What you probably meant to say is that hardware acceleration for the Mercury Playback Engine is not available unless it's a CUDA card.
More info: http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2011/02/cuda-mercury-playback-engine-and-adobe-premiere-pro.html
Best,
Kevin
I can attest to mercury working on both my MBPs 2007 and mid 2008 (8gigs of ram) but add a fast color correction effect on AVCHD or 7D footage and you gotta render - machines grind to a halt, footage not playable at all. Transcode to Prores first and you're golden.
Of course most people will get newer quad core machines but laptop wise apple doesn't have a 1Gig CUDA card for any MBP right?
Also, I have seen tests for people with fancy Quattro 4300fx cards ($1500) NS 6 OR 8 core machines where they turn on and off the hardware acceleration and didn't see much of a difference not a 10x better / $1500 difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
tyroja00
Sep 19, 10:37 AM
If you're still using the PPC, then you won't notice the difference between 2.0 and 2.16 on Intel. It will simply be "faster." Go out, get yourself a nice new MacBook, and enjoy.
I don't know if all the super hard-core Apple "fanatics" are listening or not to us Apple "users". We don't care about the clock speed of the laptop with concern to the Merom. We care about the 64-Bit. It may not be faster now, but wait till late next year, when 64-Bit native programs are out.
This is not just a bump in speed...this is a bump in Platform bigger than G4 vs G5.
It was Apple who chose to enter the Intel/PC realm. It was Apple who promised to be one of the first to utilize Merom chips. It was Apple who started the taunting of their competitors.
I don't know if all the super hard-core Apple "fanatics" are listening or not to us Apple "users". We don't care about the clock speed of the laptop with concern to the Merom. We care about the 64-Bit. It may not be faster now, but wait till late next year, when 64-Bit native programs are out.
This is not just a bump in speed...this is a bump in Platform bigger than G4 vs G5.
It was Apple who chose to enter the Intel/PC realm. It was Apple who promised to be one of the first to utilize Merom chips. It was Apple who started the taunting of their competitors.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
iphones4evry1
Jun 8, 10:26 PM
GREAT! The more places that carry the iPhone4 during the launch, THE SHORTER THE LINES WILL BE ! :)
(added to the fact that people can now pre-order from the website and have the phone shipped to them)
(added to the fact that people can now pre-order from the website and have the phone shipped to them)
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 19, 02:25 PM
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard™ cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Silentwave
Jul 15, 04:26 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
You can be quiet now. Go on Dell's medium/large business site, which is the *only* section you can find the Woodcrests in single/dual configs (HP doesn't have theirs out yet), and configure one with a decent video card, 250GB HD, no monitor, and any of the rumored processor configurations (which I think some are not correct), a DL DVD+/-RW burner, and optical mouse and you tell ME how much it costs.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
You can be quiet now. Go on Dell's medium/large business site, which is the *only* section you can find the Woodcrests in single/dual configs (HP doesn't have theirs out yet), and configure one with a decent video card, 250GB HD, no monitor, and any of the rumored processor configurations (which I think some are not correct), a DL DVD+/-RW burner, and optical mouse and you tell ME how much it costs.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:47 PM
How would you burn two DVDs at once Eldorian? I don't know of any software that lets you do this do you? :confused:
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
I agree it would be nice. But I can't imagine how.Uh, you can use Finder if you wanted to. Just put in two discs, drag the files on, and hit burn. I'm talking data. I should have tried burning to images last night using Disk Utility. Well, I could have but one at x2 and the other at x16. :D
Silentwave
Jul 14, 04:54 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
Actually I'm surprised Aidenshaw didn't pick up on this.
The specs provided are
CLEARLY FAKE!
You'd think they'd at least get the RAM right.
Woodcrest requires the use of FB-DIMM (fully-buffered DIMM) RAM, dual channel, available at 533 or 667mhz speeds. ECC built in. Though technically this is using DDR2 chips, it is referenced as a distinct type, including in Intel's publications. It does not use plain DDR like the low end spec posted in the article (and will transition to DDR3 as those become available).
(edit: toned down the sizes, they were hurting my eyes :) )
Sydde
Mar 17, 01:04 PM
�Change� means nothing ... you don�t want to deal with the monetary/financial crisis in this country, you want to keep the system together for the benefit of the banks and the big corporations and the politicians...When you voted for 'change' in you really voted for more of the same.
As opposed to voting for breaking the system down for the benefit of banks and big corporations? We have seen the actions of neo-liberals like Scott Walker: if he gets his way, the whole state will belong to Cargill and Schneider and Bergstrom and Johnsonville, etc, with no government left to protect citizens and businesses from corporate interests. Paul is cut from the same cloth. Put him in the Whitehouse and there will be millions of people protesting full time in DC, because they will have nothing else to do with their time.
Paul wants to shut down government. All that would be left is the few peace officers needed to protect business from millions of poor people. That is the neo-liberal utopia, as envisioned by Alisa Rosenbaum. This kind of policy has clearly been shown to be a recipe for potentially violent revolution:In his Brief History of Neoliberalism, the eminent social geographer David Harvey outlined "a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade." Neoliberal states guarantee, by force if necessary, the "proper functioning" of markets; where markets do not exist (for example, in the use of land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution), then the state should create them.
Guaranteeing the sanctity of markets is supposed to be the limit of legitimate state functions, and state interventions should always be subordinate to markets. All human behavior, and not just the production of goods and services, can be reduced to market transactions.
The only people for whom Egyptian neoliberalism worked "by the book" were the most vulnerable members of society, and their experience with neoliberalism was not a pretty picture. Organised labor was fiercely suppressed. The public education and the health care systems were gutted by a combination of neglect and privatization. Much of the population suffered stagnant or falling wages relative to inflation. Official unemployment was estimated at approximately 9.4% last year (and much higher for the youth who spearheaded the January 25th Revolution), and about 20% of the population is said to live below a poverty line defined as $2 per day per person.
For the wealthy, the rules were very different. Egypt did not so much shrink its public sector, as neoliberal doctrine would have it, as it reallocated public resources for the benefit of a small and already affluent elite. Privatization provided windfalls for politically well-connected individuals who could purchase state-owned assets for much less than their market value, or monopolise rents from such diverse sources as tourism and foreign aid. Huge proportions of the profits made by companies that supplied basic construction materials like steel and cement came from government contracts, a proportion of which in turn were related to aid from foreign governments.source (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122414315249621.html)
Except, Americans are not likely to wait 30 years before fighting back.
As opposed to voting for breaking the system down for the benefit of banks and big corporations? We have seen the actions of neo-liberals like Scott Walker: if he gets his way, the whole state will belong to Cargill and Schneider and Bergstrom and Johnsonville, etc, with no government left to protect citizens and businesses from corporate interests. Paul is cut from the same cloth. Put him in the Whitehouse and there will be millions of people protesting full time in DC, because they will have nothing else to do with their time.
Paul wants to shut down government. All that would be left is the few peace officers needed to protect business from millions of poor people. That is the neo-liberal utopia, as envisioned by Alisa Rosenbaum. This kind of policy has clearly been shown to be a recipe for potentially violent revolution:In his Brief History of Neoliberalism, the eminent social geographer David Harvey outlined "a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade." Neoliberal states guarantee, by force if necessary, the "proper functioning" of markets; where markets do not exist (for example, in the use of land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution), then the state should create them.
Guaranteeing the sanctity of markets is supposed to be the limit of legitimate state functions, and state interventions should always be subordinate to markets. All human behavior, and not just the production of goods and services, can be reduced to market transactions.
The only people for whom Egyptian neoliberalism worked "by the book" were the most vulnerable members of society, and their experience with neoliberalism was not a pretty picture. Organised labor was fiercely suppressed. The public education and the health care systems were gutted by a combination of neglect and privatization. Much of the population suffered stagnant or falling wages relative to inflation. Official unemployment was estimated at approximately 9.4% last year (and much higher for the youth who spearheaded the January 25th Revolution), and about 20% of the population is said to live below a poverty line defined as $2 per day per person.
For the wealthy, the rules were very different. Egypt did not so much shrink its public sector, as neoliberal doctrine would have it, as it reallocated public resources for the benefit of a small and already affluent elite. Privatization provided windfalls for politically well-connected individuals who could purchase state-owned assets for much less than their market value, or monopolise rents from such diverse sources as tourism and foreign aid. Huge proportions of the profits made by companies that supplied basic construction materials like steel and cement came from government contracts, a proportion of which in turn were related to aid from foreign governments.source (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201122414315249621.html)
Except, Americans are not likely to wait 30 years before fighting back.