eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
legreve
Apr 6, 04:04 AM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:37 PM
Once again, it's the believers who haven't backed up their beliefs with reasoning or proof.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Theists no doubt shake their heads and think atheists are fools for closing their minds/hearts/whatever.
Again, how can you prove something that (in theory) exists outside of time and space? In fact, you could say God doesn't exist (in time and space, which is all that matters). But you can't prove he doesn't exist, and you can only prove his existence using reason, which is what Aquinas attempted in his Summa Theologica and Anselm through his Ontological Argument, and many others besides.
Atheists simply shake their heads and think, "You folks are really gullible, aren't you?"
If you're going to assert that something exists, the burden of proof rests on you, not those still waiting for proof, that hasn't surfaced, after more than 2,000 years.
Theists no doubt shake their heads and think atheists are fools for closing their minds/hearts/whatever.
Again, how can you prove something that (in theory) exists outside of time and space? In fact, you could say God doesn't exist (in time and space, which is all that matters). But you can't prove he doesn't exist, and you can only prove his existence using reason, which is what Aquinas attempted in his Summa Theologica and Anselm through his Ontological Argument, and many others besides.
OllyW
Apr 28, 11:33 AM
Ahh, good catch! But that's before the iPad was even released... not sure what Al meant by his comment...
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 09:34 PM
I probably have met too few atheists. Each of my philosophy professors at the State University of New York was an atheist. But only one seemed hostile to theism. Other atheists, J.L. Mackie and Roger Scruton, say, were made some excellent points in their books. Mackie even discovered a way to go through the horns of the Euthypro dilemma, a philosophical dilemma that you can sum up with a question: Is murder morally wrong because God says so, or does he say so because it's morally wrong? Unfortunately, I forget Mackie's reply. But I'm sue that had someone proved that God existed, Mackie would have become a theist just as Antony Flew did. I've spent years studying theism and too little time to studying atheism.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
If someone one is hostile to theism, then he is anti-theist (presumably also being atheist). Most atheists are not anti-theist from my experience. Pretty much live and let live.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
jealousguy86
Apr 20, 10:13 PM
buying an iphone 4 tomorrow after reading the news today and just saying "screw it."
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:53 PM
Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough :(
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough :(
SongtotheKing
Mar 23, 05:01 PM
im not a phone genius but i am pretty sure the Android is cross-carrier. If it surpasses the iPhone any time soon, it will be because of that. But i guarantee that if the iPhone went cross-carrier as well, we would see a HUGE jump in sales in which Android will plummet. Think about it. a REALLY BIG reason a lot of people go with the Android is because the iPhone isnt available on their carrier.
IMHO
IMHO
dukebound85
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
Here is a nice site for freeware I have come across in the past:)
http://web.mac.com/simon_elliott/simon_elliott@mac.com/Software.html
CQd44
May 2, 09:16 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
If this is safari specific, it shouldn't be that big. How many people *really* use it?
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:34 PM
It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. So I'm not wrong.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:21 PM
Answering my own question, it appears (from some quick Google searches) that WINE doesn't currently like the custom CD drivers that iTunes for Windows installs, but the comercial product "CrossOffice" which is a supported WINE port that is tuned for MS Office and other popular Win32 apps, has anounced iTunes support: http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20041116;cw=3b02a63d1cda46fdf5bb968a31b557c4
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:09 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
The problem with this is that the general public will not see any difference between this and the nuclear they are terrified of, so it's probably campaign suicide for any advocates of it.
EDIT: Here's a FANTASTIC read on Fukushima: http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
CalBoy
Mar 27, 07:14 PM
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
There is a big difference between felling conflicted about one's sexual attractions (because it is taboo for example) and desiring to change it. There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
We can surgically change gender, but everyone I've ever spoken to who has had such a procedure done has told me that they never felt "at home" in their prior gender. The medical procedures we have help to align how a person feels their body should be, not the other way around.
bradl
Mar 18, 01:52 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 01:45 AM
The new Powermac or Pro Mac, seems to be a nice machine. It will be interesting to see how much faster than the quad G5.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
The big question is.
Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
I would never claim any such thing. If anything, the Quran is more related to the books of the Old Testament, some of which Islam shares, hence the "People of The Book". The Ugaritic chief god, El, of course was the prototype for Yahweh/Jehovah/El/Allah, and the minor gods were kept on as "angels" by all three religions.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
I completely agree with you. These Abrahamic religions do have a lot in common.
Edit, a few Christians tried to sue a Muslim representative here. It failed.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:46 PM
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
NikolasStow
May 2, 12:10 PM
I got this and immediately figured out it was a virus or some ****
Eric5h5
Jul 12, 04:16 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs.
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....
--Eric
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:40 PM
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
addicted44
Apr 20, 11:58 PM
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu