Bernard SG
May 3, 12:26 PM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
You're right to some extent but in most cases, you're advocating a philosophy that is one decade late.
Your concept of computing is valid for a small subset of the population that need sophisticated, 'professional' software.
It's really rare that someone needs to use the most advanced functionality of MS Excel that puts it 'ahead' of Numbers.
.jpg "hairstyles for fine hair")
NT1440
Nov 6, 04:58 PM
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Google has stated they will never have a smartphone. At best they just guide (rather closely) companies when producing Android handsets.
That said, if the iPhone isn't on verizon by midway next year with no solid rumors of it coming, I'm probably going to get an HTC Eris (or the Eris II will be out by then). Cheap, sexy, and running a decent OS (which will hopefully by 2.0 by then).
Steve Jobless
Sep 12, 04:26 PM
any pictures?
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:37 AM
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
SeattleMoose
Mar 11, 10:29 AM
I pray the loss of life is minimal. I was in the 6.8 Northridge Quake that hit LA back in the early 90's. That was a very destructive quake that caused whole buildings to tilt and knocked down part of the I-10 freeway.
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
awmazz
Mar 12, 04:42 AM
Nuclear experts are speculating that the explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released from water that's come into contact with the overheating fuel rods.
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how the hydrogen could explode. Edited.
They're saying the pressure/exploding hydrogen blew/collapsed the ceiling on the reactor. So that indicates the now destroyed building is where the overeating reactor core is. But don't worry, it's safe. There's not enough information to assume the situation is actually bad... :cool:
BBC live update (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how the hydrogen could explode. Edited.
They're saying the pressure/exploding hydrogen blew/collapsed the ceiling on the reactor. So that indicates the now destroyed building is where the overeating reactor core is. But don't worry, it's safe. There's not enough information to assume the situation is actually bad... :cool:
firestarter
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
Your arguments would probably be stronger if you dropped this 'trendy' idea. Atheism is gaining in popularity in the US, and that increase in popularity may in part be due to other attributes of the atheist social group. But membership of social groups has always been this way... how many 'theists' go to church because they like to meet people, sing and have a cup of tea on a Sunday?
To label as 'trendy' is to apply a dismissive label, which I don't believe forwards the argument.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
I think you're probably right. American atheists probably aren't 'intellectually lazy' as they're forced to justify their position much more than a European atheist would be. They've consciously chosen to reject an established belief and choose an alternate - some thought and decision process would be involved in that.
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
KnightWRX
May 2, 12:45 PM
What makes you think MacOS X still contains directory traversal vulnerabilities that were reported in 2005? Do you really think MacOS X hasn't included the known fixes that were added six years ago? Opening a zip file on MacOS X _is_ safe. Of course that zip file can contain malware, which will then by on your Mac, exactly as if you had downloaded it directly. You still have to start the malware yourself, and you will still be asked by the OS if you really, really want to run the malware.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
You and I have different meanings of safe. Opening a zip file that contains malware and then popping-up an installer without user intervention is hardly what I call safe.
Heck, auto-opening any kind of file is wrong as far as a proper security policy goes.
I wasn't talking about directory traversal. Just simple absolute Paths. You can make them using the -jj option to zip. This will store the full volume and path information and if you use unzip to extract the archive, it will try to place the file in that location on the system where you're unarchiving to.
Fortunately, it seems this is not what this is doing as Archive Utility does not honor absolute paths in a zip (I tested and confirmed it after someone came in earlier and spoke up about it), so something else is amiss here. Some people around other forums are suggesting that Archive Utility will automatically execute a .pkg if it is contained in an archive. Now that is unsafe if it is the case.
r.j.s
May 2, 11:30 AM
At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
dukebound85
Apr 24, 01:50 PM
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
Yeah, but that's for every NFL game, right? I'm just talking about the games for a single team, 16 total games throughout the season. I agree with you, $30 is probably too low but still, it should be a lot less than Sunday Ticket. Wouldn't they rather get most of that money directly (with a small cut to Apple) rather than getting a tiny sliver from Comcast (where it's part of the extended cable package and not charged for separately)?
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
Sunday Ticket is exclusive to Directv and I read where Directv only takes 5% of the profit from this package. The NFL receives the reaming 95%.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:23 PM
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that. Most mainstream religions still cling to this notion.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
Mikael
Jul 12, 05:35 PM
I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?
The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.
Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?
Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.
Evangelion
Mar 19, 08:43 AM
It's theft, pure and simple.
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Apple OC
Apr 26, 10:16 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
Multimedia
Nov 2, 09:00 PM
Don't know if you saw this article, I thought I would provide it for your review.
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 - 2.66 GHz Kentsfield Review (http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt)That's Kentsfield so it's a little off topic. But you did the right thing in posting this. Not wrong.
The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :
"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."
The More The Hype The Better I say.
That leads me to believe now more than ever it's gonna happen from Apple in two weeks. :D
Here's first good picture of 2.66GHz Kentsfield I've come across:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 - 2.66 GHz Kentsfield Review (http://reviews.cnet.com/Intel_Core_2_Extreme_QX6700/4505-3086_7-32136314.html?tag=cnetfd.mt)That's Kentsfield so it's a little off topic. But you did the right thing in posting this. Not wrong.
The most interesting thing I find about this article is that Tiger is dumping top Conroe NOW for $974. I love the marketing copy on this page. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&Sku=CP1-DUO-X6800&SRCCODE=CNETFEED&CMP=OTC-CNETFEED&ci_srccode=cii_5766179&cpncode=08-15259969-2). :eek: :
"Hurry!!
We're Selling Our Core2 Extreme CPUs at COST.
That's right...we're selling our complete stock of Intel Core2 Extreme processors AT COST! If you've been waiting for a price drop before making a move to the latest in CPU technology, it's time to take action now."
The More The Hype The Better I say.
That leads me to believe now more than ever it's gonna happen from Apple in two weeks. :D
Here's first good picture of 2.66GHz Kentsfield I've come across:
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
Eastend
Sep 26, 03:31 AM
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
zaphon
Apr 20, 11:25 PM
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
*facepalm* Apple can go around skewing the numbers in their favor however they want (throwing in iPad's, iTouch, etc.), but the fact is both in the US and Worldwide, Android has the largest Smart Phone user base. So why would Google want to throw in the towel?
No comments:
Post a Comment