guzhogi
Jul 18, 09:56 AM
Why not offer both a subscription and an a-la-carte system? The rental movies could be cheaper, lesser quality and last for only a certain amount of plays/days while the ones you buy to own can be of higher quality, more expensive and you get to keep it.
shervieux
Apr 19, 11:42 AM
But no money to upgrade :(
My 2008 macbook could use to be upgraded... It still runs great, but I need something with more storage, RAM, and a little faster for video editing. I need a quad core, 4-8gb ram and a min of 750gb hard drive. I have moved to externals for now - but that is a pain when you need to go somewhere.
I mostly use my iPad when I am out - however I still need something powerful. Since my min spec would be the 15-inch MBP, that is a little big to carry around. Thinking about an iMac; but either way I do not have the $2K for the specs I need.
Man, I wish the economy would improve so that I can find employment. Especially a type of job I am passionate about, not just one to be miserable; but pays the bills. But right now I don't have a job so beggars can't be choosers.
My 2008 macbook could use to be upgraded... It still runs great, but I need something with more storage, RAM, and a little faster for video editing. I need a quad core, 4-8gb ram and a min of 750gb hard drive. I have moved to externals for now - but that is a pain when you need to go somewhere.
I mostly use my iPad when I am out - however I still need something powerful. Since my min spec would be the 15-inch MBP, that is a little big to carry around. Thinking about an iMac; but either way I do not have the $2K for the specs I need.
Man, I wish the economy would improve so that I can find employment. Especially a type of job I am passionate about, not just one to be miserable; but pays the bills. But right now I don't have a job so beggars can't be choosers.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 22, 08:39 PM
Really? This is common knowledge and is legal. All cell phones have this backdoor built in. Al Gore is on Apple's board. This became law in 2001.
imac_japan
Apr 17, 07:57 AM
apple will not try to put Macs in every home at the expense of its business. yeah, it makes great products. but it's not a charity - they are not going to start modifying their core business model just so everyone can have their product. get over it. Mac is not meant for everyone
WRONG !! The Mac was meant for everyone !!
Thats the kind of bull people expect from a mac user.....jxyama, its people like you who need a reality check.
How can you expect people to switch when you meet people like you ???
GEEZ -
WRONG !! The Mac was meant for everyone !!
Thats the kind of bull people expect from a mac user.....jxyama, its people like you who need a reality check.
How can you expect people to switch when you meet people like you ???
GEEZ -
bushido
Apr 2, 10:34 AM
command + forward slash ;)
THANK YOU!
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
THANK YOU!
---
safari got some fixes to it seems, scrolling works smoother and doesn't get stuck on pages with lots of pics or vids and the error with not being able to type anything unless u close safari seems to be fixed as well.
wolfboy
Oct 22, 09:14 PM
Ok bought the Skullcandy Slider and the buttons are extremely hard to get to. You really have to dig deep to get in there. Part of it is because there's no tapering on the case around the buttons. It actually tapers the wrong way, blocking the buttons instead of the revealing it! When you pull out you earphone plugs, the bottom piece also comes out a little bit. I really want to keep this cause it's so badass looking, but those 2 things are deal breakers. It's going back tomorrow.
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8062/crw3104.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9417/crw3105.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5307/crw3107.jpg
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8062/crw3104.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9417/crw3105.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5307/crw3107.jpg
Demoman
Jul 20, 01:09 AM
When the "real" machines are out, Vista will be out as well. Unless Leopard has revolutionary improvements, the difference between Windows and OSX+iLife would be much less than that it is today. I would still appreciate the UNIX under the hood, but I doubt most consumers care. If Mac sales or market share starts to come down a bit due to fewer switchers, the share price could easily crash.
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Apple has been the sleeping giant. They have made their mistakes, taken their lumps and paid their dues. After 20 years, I finally bought a Mac. That was mainly because my boss gave me ~ $15K to buy any personal technology I wanted (bonus type of deal). I was learning video production/editing and using the cheap PC stuff. To make a long story short, I can now boast the purchase of:
Ocean fish selection.
diverse types of fish and
different types of fishes,
1000 types of fish,
Types of Fish/Fishing:Winter
some types of fish into
kind of fish that.
the world#39;s oceans except
The ocean sunfish, Mola mola,
robot fish leader image
types of fish migrate.
but groupie type of fish;
You are probably nursing those MS shares you bought at $90, hoping for a better day. It is not coming anytime soon sorry to say. Buying is about momentum. Apple has it and MS does not. Vista already has a great deal of bad press and it has not even hit the street. eWeek and other journals are already writing about Vista security vulnerabilities. That is not a good sign. Vista features and functionality has been scaled back numerous times. That too is not a good sign.
Who would have imagined that the common view. amongst the informed computer community, was MS was trying desperately to draw close to even-up with Apple? About the time MS established Windows 2000, they were at the top of the computer world in just about every SW market there was.
They finally had a very stable desktop, server platform, mail server, yellow pages, browser, office suite, SQL engine, and so on. But once they reached this pinnacle, two things happened (or at least two I want to talk about). One, they became way too greedy with their predatory licensing. It just went through the roof. If you have never purchased SW at the enterprise level, you do not understand how expensive this has become. SW can cost (at least) as much HW at the enterprise level.
The second thing that happened at MS is best described in a quote "When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept for there was nothing more to conquer." Instead of continuing on the path of R&D, they tried to find "new worlds to conquer", secure in the knowledge they had indeed subdued all competitors who could challenge them. Sun had tried to mount a charge in the early-mid 90's. Fortunately for MS, Sun's CEO lacked the wherewithal to do more than file lawsuits. Linux suffers from the exact problems that have plagued the Unix community; they cannot unify because they have no leadership.
Apple has been the sleeping giant. They have made their mistakes, taken their lumps and paid their dues. After 20 years, I finally bought a Mac. That was mainly because my boss gave me ~ $15K to buy any personal technology I wanted (bonus type of deal). I was learning video production/editing and using the cheap PC stuff. To make a long story short, I can now boast the purchase of:
poppe
Sep 1, 01:48 PM
I think all those that want a 23" iMac that is chinless better hope for a Merom. I think conroe would be to hot, or does conroe run pretty cool?
Heck regardless if we get a chinles iMac and it runs pretty hot we'll get forums like this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=229182)
Heck regardless if we get a chinles iMac and it runs pretty hot we'll get forums like this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=229182)
lordonuthin
Dec 21, 12:14 AM
Congrats to Lyzardking for 5 million points!
lordonuthin
Dec 19, 05:28 PM
yep, a good thing for sure. we are doing better as a team for real now. just gotta keep people interested and involved
Too bad we can't get an occational mention on the front page of this here website! ARN, are you out there, hint, hint... I'd write something to post on the front page but I'm not a good writer :D
Too bad we can't get an occational mention on the front page of this here website! ARN, are you out there, hint, hint... I'd write something to post on the front page but I'm not a good writer :D
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
tychay
Nov 28, 09:10 PM
MS never made a smartphone, they make the windows mobile software that runs on others hardware. The xbox is ms hardware and software, just like the zune. It's a entertainment market, just like the xbox, windows mobile software isn't in the entertainment market. There are far more direct comparisons between zune and xbox than between windows mobile and zune. As for peeing on their partners, what's new, I think we all know they don't play nice, instead they play to win.
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
Chundles
Jul 18, 03:16 AM
List of things I don't want to hear one word about at the WWDC:
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
iPod
iPod nano
iTMS
iMac
Mac mini
MacBook.
The WWDC is now and always should be a professionally focussed conference. All technical, nerdy and Pro stuff - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Pro Apps, OS X development.
All the other stuff can be updated in their own little events or quietly on the online store on or around the WWDC if needs be but the actual event should be totally professional stuff. That's why the developers pay the big bucks.
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 04:34 PM
What Microsoft sells is an Operating System, not a GUI element. Apple is welcome to rename their OS to "Buttons" or "Menus" and trademark that for their OS name if they choose.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
Microsoft has a trademarked OS name that is a common GUI element. They also trademarked the word "Word" for a word processing application. Where's the outrage?
Amazon could have very easily chosen a suitable name that did not exactly mirror what Apple had already chosen. Apple's other competitors have managed to do so. What would be wrong with "Amazon Apps?" Amazon picked Amazon Appstore looking for a fight.
yg17
Mar 22, 01:51 PM
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).[/QUOTE]
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).[/QUOTE]
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
FireStar
Oct 12, 04:48 PM
They sent me an email reply to that very question that basically said screw off, we don't announce, we release.
Yah, I sent them one too. It said probably in a few weeks if all goes well.
Does anyone know where I can get a maroon case?
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
Belkin doesn't have anything. Neither does Griffin. You might get a Griffin Reveal, and then a maroon skin. But that might go under a hard case.
Yah, I sent them one too. It said probably in a few weeks if all goes well.
Does anyone know where I can get a maroon case?
I don't want a silicon or a hard case, so it would have to be something else, preferably a case like the belkin grip vue, which seems to be the best case out there so far.
Belkin doesn't have anything. Neither does Griffin. You might get a Griffin Reveal, and then a maroon skin. But that might go under a hard case.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 20, 07:26 PM
Manuals are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, more reliable, longer lasting, more powerful, more fuel efficient, and offer better driver control. Automatics are for the elderly and the handicapped.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
lordonuthin
Dec 22, 04:31 PM
I had two of them (on two different machines) just stop, all eight cores using 0% CPU.
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
I've found that starting from scratch sometimes fixes things, so hopefully that will work, good luck!
Prior to that I'd get one done about 2 days early (with killer points) on each machine.
So I've restarted the client (dumped prefs/reinstalled F@H) on each machine and now have a completion date of ~12/25 (fingers crossed) for both machines.
Congrats to twoodcc for hitting the 3 mil mark!
I've found that starting from scratch sometimes fixes things, so hopefully that will work, good luck!
jav6454
Mar 24, 02:02 PM
But the GPU still has to decode what was sent and put it on the screen, which is why I asked if the TB itself can do the encoding. If it can how much overhead will that add (again as it has to happen over the PCIe side)?
Or can you send graphics information over DP that still needs to be processed, ie raw frames?
The GPU can do that, no need for CPU. The CPU is just there to tell the GPU what to crunch assuming no FLAGS were thrown regarding a particular DRM-protected data.
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
Or can you send graphics information over DP that still needs to be processed, ie raw frames?
The GPU can do that, no need for CPU. The CPU is just there to tell the GPU what to crunch assuming no FLAGS were thrown regarding a particular DRM-protected data.
Thunderbolt is just the transmission protocol, there is no actual decode or encode besides what is hard wired at the ports.
E.Lizardo
Mar 25, 07:46 PM
Ahaha, it's so much like a DS, I don't even.
http://www.ps3hax.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/nintendo-ds.jpg
Um,no.
http://www.ps3hax.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/nintendo-ds.jpg
Um,no.
NAG
Apr 21, 11:54 AM
I'm betting it is a cache and somebody forgot to write code to cull the old data. Stupid mistake, in other words. Hopefully, Apple will say something either way.
Xero910
Apr 7, 03:14 PM
The spotlight index bug is because a decimal point is in the wrong place.
Days = Hours
Hours = Minutes
Minutes = Seconds
Works fine, but displays incorrect format.
Days = Hours
Hours = Minutes
Minutes = Seconds
Works fine, but displays incorrect format.
Clive At Five
Nov 28, 10:15 AM
He has a point about the XBox... It did start out slower but now is surely considered a predominant player in the market (no pun intended;) ).
The only difference is that the XBox actually works...
...and Zune...
...Squirts?
So, yeah. I mean, I'd never buy an XBox, but it's still a viable option, nonetheless.
-Clive
The only difference is that the XBox actually works...
...and Zune...
...Squirts?
So, yeah. I mean, I'd never buy an XBox, but it's still a viable option, nonetheless.
-Clive
milo
Sep 7, 08:01 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to DL a large movie file without the option of being able to burn it to DVD so I can have that tangible hard copy that makes me feel safe and warm. Then I wouldn't have a problem deleting it off of my hard drive.
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
I don't think there's any question about that...it's just that you'd burn it to a data DVD and play it in computers with the DRM enabled, not on a DVD player. Backing up drm media isn't limited, just playing it back.
Hopefully someday we'll see real DVD burns allowed, but the way the studios are going I don't know how likey that is.
Unlike music, you rarely watch a movie twice.
I think you meant to say "*I* rarely watch a movie twice". You may not, but many people do, especially kids, who will be well covered by disney releases. It really just depends on the consumer and the movie, there's no question that millions of DVDs are sold.
There are a few issues with rentals. Besides DRM, they'd have to compete with netflix and similar companies, which would mean the price would have to be incredibly cheap, probably far less than the studios would be willing to go (don't forget, really the studios are setting prices, not apple). There's simply no way they could compete with netflix without losing money (assuming the studios even allowed it, which would never happen).
And for all the people who will be disappointed if apple can't compete with their piracy scheme? Give me a freaking break. :rolleyes:
The best option (besides a rental model, which we know is not going to happen) would be to release a media center (iTheatre, iHome, etc.) that has a 250GB or 500GB hard-drive. All the movies could be downloaded through the GUI on the TV!
But apple has an even better idea, just have an airport on your tv and stream the video from ANY computer in your house. WAY cheaper, and you're not wasting an expensive computer by having it sitting by the TV all day instead of using it for computer stuff.
But yes... paying for something that it can be accidentally DELETED from your harddrive is NOT cool...
So back it up, why would it be any different than the video and audio content apple already sells? Their current DRM hasn't been hacked yet, has it?
still think the prices are a little steep for things that can be watched on an ipod.
You won't just watch these on an ipod, apple will release a streaming solution for TVs along with the movie store.
Apple keeps track of all the songs you buy anyway, so it's my opinion that you should be able to just "get another copy" if you have already purchased a song.
But sending you files over and over costs apple money. Why don't you just back your files up?
HD or whatever you fancy, it's cool with me, but talking about quality, why are the iTunes songs still at that lousy 128 bitrate. I mean if they can do movies, nice quality (at least 256) songs are not that diffucult?
Because 128 is "good enough" for most listeners. The "good enough" point for movies is probably 480(i or p).
No comments:
Post a Comment