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.
Sodner
Apr 21, 01:42 PM
This entire thread is hilarious.
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
Amen, hallelujah, someone pass they Tylenol. :apple:
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
Amen, hallelujah, someone pass they Tylenol. :apple:
nsayer
Apr 28, 08:22 AM
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
That's pretty much the definition of a fad.
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:38 AM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily. Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea. -mark
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Run 4 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 4 copies of Toast Simutaneously
Run 2 copies of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 3 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 3 copies of Toast Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Toast and 2 copies of Handbrake Simultaneously
Run 1 copy of Handbrake and 2 copies of Toast Simultaneously
All of the above would easily and immediately HOSE the 8 Core Mac Pro NOW. I need to do all of the above a lot of the time.
I use Toast to encode and write EyeTV2 digital SD and HD Broadcast Recordings to DVD IMAGES (not DVD media) before crushing those images to excellent compact mp4 files with Handbrake. BOTH can use up to 3 cores on G5 Quads - perhaps 4 on Intel - EACH if they are allowed to run alone.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 11:33 AM
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
Yes... "TelePort."
My ingenious title is catching on... I realize this post is off topic but we're on page 9. how much more relevant conversation can be had on this topic?
Anyway, I think it would be totally sweet if there were a cult folowing of people who wanted to call it TelePort. Then Apple would have no choice but to call it that...
...well I mean they would have a choice...
...and they'd probably choose not to call it that...
...but it'd still be sweet...
...right, guys?
...guys?
-Clive
eternlgladiator
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
I thought it was appropriate for this line. It's not in my main repertoire but I thought it worked.
(ex).jpg "desktop wallpaper zebra print.")
iCole
Apr 6, 12:54 PM
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:46 PM
nixd2001, others:
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
Please note I am editing my previos post (last one on page 7) to address the issue.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:51 PM
HDMI has nothing to do with the down res of an image. The Image Constraint Token dictates whether HD will be transmitted over analog channels like component. The ICT has not been implemented by any studio and they have stated it is not likely to be in the near future.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
That is exactly what I said, except in plain English.
To repeat: HDMI maintains image resolution and allows the receiving device (monitor with HD Compliancy) to adjust if needed. It also maintains encryption for DRM -- I said exactly what you said.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:45 PM
And marriage is legal in many parts of Europe between same sex couples
It's also legal here in Canada.
it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And lets not forget most of the good 'ole US of A.
It's also legal here in Canada.
it is only the 3rd world and developing world that has the biggest issue with same sex marriage but as these countries always traditionally follow Europe expect the decline of religion as more and more people become educated, and with the decline of religion such nonsense as hating each over whom we love to also fade away.
And lets not forget most of the good 'ole US of A.
takao
Mar 15, 11:25 AM
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
koobcamuk
Apr 15, 09:22 AM
What's LGBT?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
cr2sh
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
I thought we decided to ignore everything that barefeats has to say? They are not a reputable source at all, their tests are flawed and they have little metadata at all.... why even bother?
einmusiker
Mar 18, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they can prove people are doing unauthorized tethering. You won't be seeing it so they really have nothing to charge you for. All we've heard so far is speculation and nothing more
TomSmithMacEd
Sep 20, 07:22 PM
I read most of the comments and I cannot believe anyone else talked about the wonderful little program known as handbrake.
Take your dvd's (or ones you rent... I know it's illegal) rip them.. put them on iTunes
Have a server full of dozens/hundreds of dvd's that you can access at anytime through your iTV.
I know it's not the most practicle way of doing this, but it is what I'll be doing if I purchase an iTV.
Take your dvd's (or ones you rent... I know it's illegal) rip them.. put them on iTunes
Have a server full of dozens/hundreds of dvd's that you can access at anytime through your iTV.
I know it's not the most practicle way of doing this, but it is what I'll be doing if I purchase an iTV.
Eaon
Apr 19, 02:12 PM
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
wovel
Apr 28, 09:03 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
It can count as a computer, net books do..
It can count as a computer, net books do..
sawah
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
The point is, whether or not you feel you SHOULD be able to use it any way you want, YOU signed the contract that says you can't!
No one had a problem with it and was all "Take Apple to court!" when they were tethering for free. But now that you're caught you want to complain about the contract?
Argue all you want about whatever, but the facts come down to you signed that contract. It hasn't changed. You don't get to be mad about it now. And somehow I doubt any of you are getting out of an etf if you want to leave because that's always been in the contract you signed.
No one had a problem with it and was all "Take Apple to court!" when they were tethering for free. But now that you're caught you want to complain about the contract?
Argue all you want about whatever, but the facts come down to you signed that contract. It hasn't changed. You don't get to be mad about it now. And somehow I doubt any of you are getting out of an etf if you want to leave because that's always been in the contract you signed.
