Anuba
Jun 7, 07:35 AM
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not).
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
dizastor
Aug 29, 11:45 AM
Apple gaining marketshare, picking up momentum...
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?
Stock scandal...
Battery recall...
Greenpeace report...
what's next?
Steve Jobs' departure?
megadon
Dec 27, 09:50 PM
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).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
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).
Gooooooooogleee phone!!!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
darkplanets
Mar 12, 11:18 PM
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 09:00 PM
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
So OSX allows user access to all critical files with no option to hide?
iMikeT
Sep 26, 07:16 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
Now that I think about it, an 8-core system would work great when 10.5 arrives. Imagine using the "Spaces" feature in Leopard and each space running a separate application. A Mac with this much power would be perfect doing such a task.;)
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:07 PM
... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
acearchie
Apr 13, 03:14 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
No one forces you to own a TV or a TV licence for that matter?
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
No one has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 07:04 PM
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
soLoredd
Mar 18, 06:07 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Agreed.
What I do find AT&T at fault for (and other carriers, for that matter) is this seperate tethering charge. I have unlimited data on my iPhone plan, and while I'm not crazy to think I should have that for tethering as well, I do think if I make the switch to a capped plan I should be able to use that for ALL data to my phone.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
kdarling
Jun 14, 02:31 PM
If you want to program for the iPhone without buying a Mac or learning Objective-C, you can use DragonFire:
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
CuttyShark
Apr 13, 03:26 AM
It can edit and do cool stuff and we know that. What all can it do? We just have to wait and see. For now, I see it's something fun to play around with and I'll probably do that. I'll take my 5D, shoot some fun stuff, edit on location, and upload to youtube. I can't say how far I'd go if my paying gig requires pulling footage from a tape source, importing an EDL or older FCP project for an update, or organizing tracks for exporting stems to my post audio outsourcer.
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
It looks like fun, but I feel there's many more questions to come.
Oh well...back the smug!! ;)
Cheers!
elbirth
Oct 25, 04:08 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
rxse7en
Oct 11, 01:46 PM
I have the 24 left of the 20. Way cooler for a total of 3520 x 1200.No. I think the line will stay the way it is adding 2.33GHz + 800 and 2.66GHz + $1500 Clovertown options in the Processor section on the configure page. That way according to your type of workload style you can choose between 4 faster cores if you do less multi-threaded work vs 8 slower cores if you are all about a Multi-Threaded Workload.I can't stand less than 1200 high. You know Dell monitors rotate too and rotation is supported with ATI Video cards but not NVIDEA.Link please? Never mind I found it with Google.
I can only hope that CS3 will be processor aware. I'm dying out here with CS2 under Rosetta. Has Intel announced a speed bump on Woodcrest yet?
B
I can only hope that CS3 will be processor aware. I'm dying out here with CS2 under Rosetta. Has Intel announced a speed bump on Woodcrest yet?
B
elbirth
Oct 25, 04:08 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Yeah, I saw someone talking earlier about the addition of the 750GB drives... this gives me a new dilemma of deciding between 2 drives. I suppose price will be my deciding factor overall... I just want my 8 cores!
justflie
Mar 18, 07:29 AM
What exactly about "unlimited" don't people understand? Without limits.
Silentwave
Sep 25, 11:41 PM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
Squire
Sep 20, 08:56 AM
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
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.
