unlinked
Apr 9, 01:03 PM
Hang on. Let me just parse the negatives in that sentence.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Well done. Next you will be correcting me referring to my mother as mum.
"Aren't PR people supposed to make everyone like you"
Right that's better.
Yes they are...
Well done. Next you will be correcting me referring to my mother as mum.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
appleguy123
Apr 24, 08:29 AM
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I'm sorry, but this a demonstrable lie. Atheists are almost never suicide bombers, have a lower crime rate, and don't predict the freaking end of the world to happen in their life time.
These facts don't fit your assumption about Atheists.
I'm sorry, but this a demonstrable lie. Atheists are almost never suicide bombers, have a lower crime rate, and don't predict the freaking end of the world to happen in their life time.
These facts don't fit your assumption about Atheists.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 12:22 AM
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
gohanmzt
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
Shotglass
Sep 12, 03:28 PM
Could you please provide a link to the coverage? I never heard of this.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:47 PM
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
MacinDoc
Aug 29, 03:07 PM
For those who don't know what the Precautionary Principle, it is a belief that essentially states that everything should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise. Therefore, it applies mostly to innovators and producers of new products that have not been made before. Apple, being an innovative company, introduces new technologies. Dell, on the other hand, copies what others have done. So, the only way that Apple could adhere as closely to the Precautionary Principle as Dell would be to become another Dell, and to only copy what other manufacturers were already making. So, including this principle in Greenpeace's analysis of the environmental friendliness of tech firms is laughable at best, conspiratorial at worst.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
Am I saying that Apple could not do better as a steward of the environment? No, but I suspect that Dell, which should be stopping its distribution of CRTs (which consume much more power than LCDs and contain lead) and designing products to have a longer lifespan, is more in need of improvement than Apple is.
dgree03
Apr 28, 02:06 PM
By the "real world" you are ignoring the vast majority of users who need nothing like the power of a standard desktop today, and won't need software requiring a decacore processor in 10 years. Power users will always have PCs. The other 90% of humanity will do the majority of their work on tablets.
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software. Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software. Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 11:43 PM
Do you think the people you know represent a fair sample group? You don't know anyone who needs Windows for work?
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:41 PM
Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The speculation from my general area is that Apple will never (never say never, right..) make a DVR. It's not in their interest to make a DVR. There are several companies that are doing the DVR thing for Macs (el gato and Migila) and IMO, Apple shouldn't tread those waters.
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
As for a Tivo killer, there's too much going against it for Apple to do. First of all, to do a DVR right, it's going to cost the end user a ton of money. The Tivo Series 3 will cost $800 (less with rebates) plus the monthly fees. Tivo's going to have a tough time convincing people to buy the S3 when the cablecos have an option available for $10/month.
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
If I want, I could initiate a purchase of a movie from iTMS (provided the quality of the movies are good) from the iTV itself so that it downloads onto the Mac in the office. A rental plan would be even better. That way, I could completely isolate myself from the real world.
ft
Good to see some people around here "get it".
slinger1968
Oct 26, 09:39 PM
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.I've seen this comment on numerous posts and it sounds like people haven't read Anand's review.
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:43 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. .
Have you ever even used color? I mean really USED IT? This is not what the program is for. It's not about "fixing your shots" it's about GRADING. This is a souped up version of the existing color correction, along with an autocorrect feature like Avid has had for quite a while (though probably better than that, I'm sure)
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
Have you ever even used color? I mean really USED IT? This is not what the program is for. It's not about "fixing your shots" it's about GRADING. This is a souped up version of the existing color correction, along with an autocorrect feature like Avid has had for quite a while (though probably better than that, I'm sure)
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
Color was a $25,000 app that Apple bought, smacked their logo on it and gave it away essentially for free. Which was great at the time, but the hope was that they'd take that technology and integrate it. What they (and you described) is nothing like what Color does.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 09:55 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 05:06 PM
You all seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
I hope you're not including me in that as I've posted several times on the very subject.I'm not a Malthusian but I agree that human population is something we need to look at,every child a wanted child and cared for child for instance.Why do westerners use so much energy?Because they are not in touch with their environment,airconditioning in cars and homes?wtf for there are technologies hundreds of years old that can deal with that.To me it appears a lot of people work harder and harder for less and less.Bah humans in general are eejits.
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
I hope you're not including me in that as I've posted several times on the very subject.I'm not a Malthusian but I agree that human population is something we need to look at,every child a wanted child and cared for child for instance.Why do westerners use so much energy?Because they are not in touch with their environment,airconditioning in cars and homes?wtf for there are technologies hundreds of years old that can deal with that.To me it appears a lot of people work harder and harder for less and less.Bah humans in general are eejits.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 03:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that is? The *NIX family? Or something else? I'd like to hear your perspective.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
I would LOVE to buy an iMac...and have been wanting for a few years...but $1200 for essentially a web surfing machine and iPod syncing machine is just too expensive for what it will be used for. My 4+ year old Mac Mini works just fine and even that was a lot of money when I got it ($1200).
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
A very high percentage of consumers (as is reflected still now in 2011 personal computer marketshare) primarily do web-based activities, a little bit of Office productivity, and iTunes and thus do not need to spend 2x the money for product B when product A is fine. Why buy a Mac for $1200+ when a $600 Windows box (including nice 20"+ monitor) will fit the bill just fine?
Not trying to start the never-ending debate but this is the reality.
I love the iMac look...but after a few minutes of pondering, I can get a machine for 1/2 the price with the same size monitor that will do exactly what I (and 90% of consumers) need. If you're a Mac lover or have to use the Mac for particular reasons, of course the Mac is going to be your choice. But for the high majority of consumers in the world...there's just no need to spend twice the price.
slinger1968
Nov 3, 09:45 PM
I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.Well try reading what you are responding to, before you get your panties in a bunch. I was clearly talking about most software for the masses, not all software. Most software is currently behind the hardware because most software is not written for more than 2 cores yet.
They aren't. That's my whole point.Well, You are wrong, most software is behind the current hardware. The hardware is only still weak for a small niche market of power users. You are a power user but the majority of people out there, especially iMac buyers are not using their computers for the same tasks. Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.The hardware is only weak for a small niche group of power users. It's rediculous to think that the average user is doing 3D modeling or high powered video processing. It's just silly.
I have a dedicated bittorrent/music playing computer for live uncopywritten music. I've downloaded/uploaded over 1 terabyte of data and have specific computing needs for this. I'm just smart enough to recognize that my usage isn't normal.
Again, Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't. That's my whole point.Well, You are wrong, most software is behind the current hardware. The hardware is only still weak for a small niche market of power users. You are a power user but the majority of people out there, especially iMac buyers are not using their computers for the same tasks. Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.The hardware is only weak for a small niche group of power users. It's rediculous to think that the average user is doing 3D modeling or high powered video processing. It's just silly.
I have a dedicated bittorrent/music playing computer for live uncopywritten music. I've downloaded/uploaded over 1 terabyte of data and have specific computing needs for this. I'm just smart enough to recognize that my usage isn't normal.
Again, Read any of the computer hardware sites and the reviews on the quad core processors. They all say that these are currently enthusiast or power level parts not aimed at the general consumer.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by WanaPBnow
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
To clarify, I was referring to Windows XP and Mac OS X on the desktop, not server. I have had excellent experiences with both in terms of stability. As far as the Windows platform on the server side, again, the magic is in the software. I work for a modest sized isp, and we recently transitioned all of our production servers to bsd and linux blades. All of our web/dns/mx/mail/mrtg/etc machines are Unix. The result has been they are more reliable, and easier to maintain, not to mention the substantial less total cost of ownership.
digitalbiker
Sep 24, 01:50 AM
I'm 99% sure the machine is intended as an independent hub that can use iTunes libraries on the same network but can also go to the iTS directly and view content straight from there (and possibly other sources, such as Google Video.)
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
You are going to be sorely disappointed then!.
The iTV most definitely requires a computer. The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video. It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV. The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
