tMac85
Jan 11, 11:06 PM
Maybe Apple's poster actually says more but we can't see the bottom?
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
Something like: "There's something in the air... blow it out your ass Microsoft" :p
hahahahahahha
7on
Feb 21, 01:51 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5322249630_f13fec39df_z.jpg
WHAT is that orange contraption? MUST acquire!
WHAT is that orange contraption? MUST acquire!
2 Replies
Sep 14, 04:49 PM
They are just doing it for publicity I bet...
... O_o ...
The're a magazine.
....
Publicity DEFINES their business model.
</@laynemoseley>
That said, I still agree with their decision to not recommend it, and the timing of this restating of their stance is fine since Apple's offer is nearly up.
Apple has acknowledged the phone does have a unique issue (that is NOT just the same as the issue of covering up the antenna that most mobile devices have ... otherwise adding an extra bumper wouldn't fix it.).
No self-respecting consumer product review org would recommend a product with known flaws that the manufacturer refuses to adequately fix in the long term.
... O_o ...
The're a magazine.
....
Publicity DEFINES their business model.
</@laynemoseley>
That said, I still agree with their decision to not recommend it, and the timing of this restating of their stance is fine since Apple's offer is nearly up.
Apple has acknowledged the phone does have a unique issue (that is NOT just the same as the issue of covering up the antenna that most mobile devices have ... otherwise adding an extra bumper wouldn't fix it.).
No self-respecting consumer product review org would recommend a product with known flaws that the manufacturer refuses to adequately fix in the long term.
!� V �!
Apr 26, 03:01 PM
It is my understanding that "Application Store" is a generic term, however "App Store" could be considered a trademark even though it is an abbreviation of the former.
I am not saying that :apple: is right or Microsoft and Amazon is right, I am looking at this as what the term generic means. Having an abbreviation of a generic term might mean :apple: has a case, then again its a grey area.
My prediction, the Judge will simple inform Microsoft and Amazon and Others to change it to "Application Store" and all will be well.
I am not saying that :apple: is right or Microsoft and Amazon is right, I am looking at this as what the term generic means. Having an abbreviation of a generic term might mean :apple: has a case, then again its a grey area.
My prediction, the Judge will simple inform Microsoft and Amazon and Others to change it to "Application Store" and all will be well.
Riemann Zeta
Apr 1, 11:49 PM
Thus far, stability-wise, it is not too bad for a beta. A lot of the UI rendering errors from beta 1 have been ironed out. My bet would be that this will be a $29 upgrade, as it doesn't add much but rather refines what 10.6 started.
twoodcc
Nov 15, 09:46 AM
well i guess my mac pro will continue to serve me well. so i'm not too worried that new ones are coming out, glad actually. go apple:cool:
FearNo1
Apr 23, 12:30 AM
Its good that you are at least suspicious of apple's actions. There has to be a reason why apple inc still has not responded to this. BTW, before someone asks, no I do not have an android or other smart phone as they could be worse at spying than iphone.
Not this easy.
It's not so much about finding people at any moment, but knowing where they've been. And this file makes it dirt simple to find that out.
A guy in your terrorist cell claims he's not FBI, because he's never been to Washington DC. Even his phone contacts are all people nowhere near there. Yet what if his cache list says otherwise. He's probably dead.
By now, you also know that I always speak from personal experience when possible.
I was Military Intelligence and NSA in the heart of the Cold War. I did undercover field work at times. This kind of easy info is both priceless and dangerous. I've seen field officers compromised in almost every way imaginable. My scenarios are not stretches by any means.
Not this easy.
It's not so much about finding people at any moment, but knowing where they've been. And this file makes it dirt simple to find that out.
A guy in your terrorist cell claims he's not FBI, because he's never been to Washington DC. Even his phone contacts are all people nowhere near there. Yet what if his cache list says otherwise. He's probably dead.
By now, you also know that I always speak from personal experience when possible.
I was Military Intelligence and NSA in the heart of the Cold War. I did undercover field work at times. This kind of easy info is both priceless and dangerous. I've seen field officers compromised in almost every way imaginable. My scenarios are not stretches by any means.
twoodcc
May 8, 05:22 PM
a3's on the '08
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
oh ok i gotcha. what kind of times per frame (every 1%) are you getting with the 09s on the bigadv units?
-bigadv on the '09s (they occasionally pickup an a3)
Sorry about the confusion (I should reread what I type) :o
oh ok i gotcha. what kind of times per frame (every 1%) are you getting with the 09s on the bigadv units?
firestarter
Apr 12, 09:50 PM
No, but having features like face detection does suggest that it's a 'consumer' orientated product.
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
Bengt77
Aug 25, 04:56 PM
7. iMacs will get:
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) and
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)
Man, that sounds good! I'll take one. To take away, please. Djeez, I am so ready for a new iMac! :o
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) and
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB)
Man, that sounds good! I'll take one. To take away, please. Djeez, I am so ready for a new iMac! :o
Eraserhead
Mar 31, 03:23 PM
Admittedly, the Brits aren't very good at letting it go either.
We did more history coverage of WW2 than India and China combined.
We did more history coverage of WW2 than India and China combined.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Frobozz
Mar 25, 09:40 AM
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 07:52 PM
Oops. Fixed that. Should be 210 km/h.
Thanks for the link btw takao.
Thanks for the link btw takao.
supremedesigner
Sep 7, 12:03 PM
This is a very special thread. :)
So who knows what will happen next week. I think I'd much rather buy movies from iTunes (hopefully QT 7 HD quality) or regular physical DVD than HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (way over-priced).
So who knows what will happen next week. I think I'd much rather buy movies from iTunes (hopefully QT 7 HD quality) or regular physical DVD than HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (way over-priced).
leekohler
Mar 22, 01:00 PM
I don't believe any was born gay, that's my opinion. I believe you make the choice in your life, just like you make the choice on what career you want and college you desire to go to. I have friends that were once married (guy/girl) and then divorced because they liked their sex better. So now they are openly gay and happy.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
You opinion may be true of some people- not all. I did not choose to be attracted to guys. I also could never have sex with a woman. It's not physically possible for me, if you get my meaning. Stop telling other people that you know everything about them. You don't. Not everyone is the same.
Chris Bangle
Sep 5, 09:06 AM
9AM Eastern is the most obvious time to do it, I guess. (But, to be pedantic, did you mean 2pm GMT or BST? ;) :) )
I time i meant was London time which is the same as GMT but i dont know th difference between GMT and British Standard time. Come on new imacs....
Apple you morans, no updates to the store, my life is over.
I time i meant was London time which is the same as GMT but i dont know th difference between GMT and British Standard time. Come on new imacs....
Apple you morans, no updates to the store, my life is over.
theBigD23
May 2, 07:01 PM
I feel the same way. I just want to delete an app that delete all of the junk that comes with it. Just moving it to e trash does not do that. Some programs have an uninstall and some don't. That's more confusing for people.
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
Built
Apr 2, 07:37 PM
I'll "believe" when they fix the currently unresolved and widespread quality control issues...light bleed on virtually every unit and blemishes, dents and scratches on units straight out of the box.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
Fix those issues, Apple, and then I will "believe" enough to get an iPad 2.
PBF
Apr 7, 04:57 AM
Very minor one: instead of the spinning wheel, now it actually says "Updating..." when, um, updating. :D
http://cl.ly/5pct/img.png
http://cl.ly/5pct/img.png
Lurchdubious
Nov 25, 07:28 PM
Yeah, I know, It's a much bigger case than a simple eye glasses case, But a Ferrari is a much faster car than the speed limits on any high way in the US?
(not sure, if that's a perfectly accurate analogy but it made sense to me)
Yeah that didn't make sense. ;)
FWIW, I really love Pelican cases. I'll be buying one soon to put a couple guns in. Kudos to you for taking care of your $h!t.
(not sure, if that's a perfectly accurate analogy but it made sense to me)
Yeah that didn't make sense. ;)
FWIW, I really love Pelican cases. I'll be buying one soon to put a couple guns in. Kudos to you for taking care of your $h!t.
boncellis
Sep 6, 09:41 AM
Except that doesn't take into account the superdrive and hard drive. It's more like a $100 price drop.
Ah, you're right, I missed the Superdrive change. Nice catch. I've never paid mind to the HDD inasmuch as it almost begs for a high-capacity external drive anyway, in my opinion.
Ah, you're right, I missed the Superdrive change. Nice catch. I've never paid mind to the HDD inasmuch as it almost begs for a high-capacity external drive anyway, in my opinion.
drewsof07
Nov 24, 08:13 AM
ASK and you shall receive!!
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
Multimedia
Aug 31, 12:32 PM
What about this report of a silent mini update already in the pipeline on the French HardMac website? (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-08-31/#5869) :)
"I have ordered a Mac mini Core solo with 1GB of RAM last Saturday to use it as a server, and what a surprise when I received the box!
My Mac mini has been upgraded:
- Core Duo 1.66GHz instead of Core Solo 1.5GHz
- HD 100GB instead of 60GB
- and a SuperDrive instead of a Combo!
Thanks Apple !
On the box, the specifications are those of a Mac mini Core Solo..."Wow! Fantastic for $599. Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping for - esp the 100GB HD. Looking great. I wonder why the Apple Website Store hasn't been updated to reflect this change? :confused: Surely all in the pipeline that were 1.5 solo are now 1.66 duo. Perhaps Apple doesn't want Joe Blow to know so the rest of the solos can GO with the Blows? :D
That's gotta be the biggest increase in power in recent Apple history for no additional cost - twice the cores running faster than the previous one. Maybe back in the G4 days something like this happened. But it wasn't at the bottom of the line for $599. And it CERTAINLY wasn't unannounced and not even on the packaging!
I'm very excited for all the mini buyers out there. Congrats if you get one like this before Apple admits they are in the pipeline.
"I have ordered a Mac mini Core solo with 1GB of RAM last Saturday to use it as a server, and what a surprise when I received the box!
My Mac mini has been upgraded:
- Core Duo 1.66GHz instead of Core Solo 1.5GHz
- HD 100GB instead of 60GB
- and a SuperDrive instead of a Combo!
Thanks Apple !
On the box, the specifications are those of a Mac mini Core Solo..."Wow! Fantastic for $599. Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping for - esp the 100GB HD. Looking great. I wonder why the Apple Website Store hasn't been updated to reflect this change? :confused: Surely all in the pipeline that were 1.5 solo are now 1.66 duo. Perhaps Apple doesn't want Joe Blow to know so the rest of the solos can GO with the Blows? :D
That's gotta be the biggest increase in power in recent Apple history for no additional cost - twice the cores running faster than the previous one. Maybe back in the G4 days something like this happened. But it wasn't at the bottom of the line for $599. And it CERTAINLY wasn't unannounced and not even on the packaging!
I'm very excited for all the mini buyers out there. Congrats if you get one like this before Apple admits they are in the pipeline.
No comments:
Post a Comment