Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:38 PM
Hey for what its worth, i understand where you're coming from Zadillo BUT some people still find the joke funny and therefore it deserves to be told.
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Leoff
Sep 19, 07:28 AM
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
skippy-fluff
Aug 25, 05:06 PM
The battery recall validator also rejected my battery, which is clearly in the range advertised on the web site. When I called the support lines yesterday, they didn't even try to take the call. Today I got through, and I got told by "Rachel" that there were a small number of batteries in the ranges that were manufactured by someone other than Sony. She couldn't tell me who, and when I asked for further information, she escalated the call.
The next guy, whose name I didn't catch, basically said the same thing. When I explained that I would like something from Apple indicating that the public listing on the recall didn't apply to me, he said that sometime in the future (unstated) this will get updated on the website. Since my primary reason for wanting it is to avoid potential airline troubles, that wasn't too great answer. His next suggestion, to print the validation failure, was funny, but not very practical. I fly about once a week, and I've already seen the dell guys being asked not to work on the plane. I don't want to be in that club, so I was pretty insistent that they write something down.
I asked them to send me something (even by fax) that simply said that my battery was not subject to recall, despite the fact it fell into the consumer product safety commission recalled range and Apple announced range (still up, with no amendment, by at https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html). He could not.
I next got sent to Kelly, in customer service, whose attitude was about the least customer-service related of any of them. She tried to read out the web site to me, and got very frustrated when I pointed out that it did not say what she wanted it to say. It does not say that there are batteries in the ranges that are fine. It says at least twice that if you have a battery in the range you should send for a replacement and not use it. I pointed out to her that the trouble ticket I'd opened covered the ground nicely, and that all I wanted was a statement of the result: "Apple's support staff has worked with this customer and has established that the battery Serial No. XXXX is not subject to the recall on Sony-produced batteries". Or whatever language they like.
She agreed that this was truth, but said she could not provide any documentation. She also declined to escalate further.
Given that the validator has said no to people who should have gotten yes, relying on it as the last word is a bad idea. Get a real person on the phone. But even then, be prepared for frustration if you would like
anything but an oral assurance that the battery you have is good.
The next guy, whose name I didn't catch, basically said the same thing. When I explained that I would like something from Apple indicating that the public listing on the recall didn't apply to me, he said that sometime in the future (unstated) this will get updated on the website. Since my primary reason for wanting it is to avoid potential airline troubles, that wasn't too great answer. His next suggestion, to print the validation failure, was funny, but not very practical. I fly about once a week, and I've already seen the dell guys being asked not to work on the plane. I don't want to be in that club, so I was pretty insistent that they write something down.
I asked them to send me something (even by fax) that simply said that my battery was not subject to recall, despite the fact it fell into the consumer product safety commission recalled range and Apple announced range (still up, with no amendment, by at https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html). He could not.
I next got sent to Kelly, in customer service, whose attitude was about the least customer-service related of any of them. She tried to read out the web site to me, and got very frustrated when I pointed out that it did not say what she wanted it to say. It does not say that there are batteries in the ranges that are fine. It says at least twice that if you have a battery in the range you should send for a replacement and not use it. I pointed out to her that the trouble ticket I'd opened covered the ground nicely, and that all I wanted was a statement of the result: "Apple's support staff has worked with this customer and has established that the battery Serial No. XXXX is not subject to the recall on Sony-produced batteries". Or whatever language they like.
She agreed that this was truth, but said she could not provide any documentation. She also declined to escalate further.
Given that the validator has said no to people who should have gotten yes, relying on it as the last word is a bad idea. Get a real person on the phone. But even then, be prepared for frustration if you would like
anything but an oral assurance that the battery you have is good.
hexor
Mar 26, 08:03 AM
There is no way this is a GM. The "reporter" is obviously confused. If it was a GM version that means they would be sending it off for duplication soon. Since WWDC is months away this makes no sense.
pkson
Apr 10, 08:36 PM
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
RichP
Sep 13, 08:19 AM
Nice! Im with iGary and others, soon as they are out, Im buying. That should correspond nicely with the release of CS3.
Im doing work in Alias these days, I can only imagine how 8 cores could do a render!
Suprised the MacPro could handle the heat of 8 cores with its 4-core heatsink design. I read the article about Kentsfield on Tom's Hardware, and that chip made ALOT of heat; these are basically the same chip.
EDIT: Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Im doing work in Alias these days, I can only imagine how 8 cores could do a render!
Suprised the MacPro could handle the heat of 8 cores with its 4-core heatsink design. I read the article about Kentsfield on Tom's Hardware, and that chip made ALOT of heat; these are basically the same chip.
EDIT: Who knows, the hot setup may be a refurb'ed MacPro 2.0Ghz, then drop in better CPUs!
Full of Win
Mar 31, 09:34 PM
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
No, it's "make up a fake day" day.
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 12:40 PM
I'd rather have 1000 equally modeled cars, but when you are dealing with 1000 cars it has to be a touch decision to make. Even so, they wouldnt have to redo anything, just copy a higher res model into the resource server.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
Shadow
Jul 14, 07:02 PM
Why be limited to 2? Why not 3, 4, 5 or 6? I also want quad-10GHz Woodcrests with 20GB of DDR6-8000 RAM, with 2exobytes of HDD space. AND room to upgrade. Oh, and quad 7900GTXs. For �1000.
Ok, that never gonna happen, but it illustrates the point that people want more and more for less and less.
Ok, that never gonna happen, but it illustrates the point that people want more and more for less and less.
bigwig
Nov 28, 07:37 PM
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
My bet is that artist's contracts only pay out on music sales, not hardware royalties. Thus the cdrom tax and ipod royalties are profits they don't have to share with artists despite their pious rhetoric about how they need these revenues because piracy hurts recording artists.
My bet is that artist's contracts only pay out on music sales, not hardware royalties. Thus the cdrom tax and ipod royalties are profits they don't have to share with artists despite their pious rhetoric about how they need these revenues because piracy hurts recording artists.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 04:30 PM
We can most certainly keep procreating if heterosexuals don't have sex. It's not that difficult.
you and you partner will beget how exactly, oral and anal sex don't produce a child nor does mutual masturbation, so how exactly will you and your partner produce a child?
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
you and you partner will beget how exactly, oral and anal sex don't produce a child nor does mutual masturbation, so how exactly will you and your partner produce a child?
I've reread the post in question several times, and I am just not seeing it. Would you mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that neko girl was suggesting heterosexuals stop having sex?
I mean, even if she was, good luck with that.
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
skunk
Apr 28, 04:52 PM
that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.Surely the comb-over is enough?
LightSpeed1
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
i wonder if apple will release a version in the app store???They should.
*LTD*
Apr 6, 07:51 AM
Impossible.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
notabadname
Mar 22, 02:01 PM
The screen is not 50% smaller. Nice way of making yourself look stupid.
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Playbook has that elusive flash support out of the box which every apple fanboy wants to hide under the rug.
OS is more eloquent than iOS.
Well, if you are going to tell people their posts make them look stupid, perhaps you should consider your own, and read a dictionary before throwing around three syllable words. Your use of the word "eloquent" is incorrect. "Eloquent" is not a word that applies to a software operating system.
Eloquent: The quality of artistry and persuasiveness in speech or writing; the practice or art of using language with fluency and aptness; fluent, forcible, elegant or persuasive speaking in public.
As in; "Your post was not eloquent".
Dave00
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
Well, looks like Apple has figured out what to do with all that extra space most of us have on our hard drives. Even though only changes are saved, it seems like this will take up an enormous amount of space, especially for multimedia files like movies, etc. Plus, if only changes are stored, it would seem that to restore a file would entail starting with the original, and applying all the changes since then - wouldn't that take quite a long time? And saving a file would probably take longer too... smells like alot of system slowdown. Still, I'll be very impressed if this actually works without a huge number of bugs - it has to be a phenomenally complicated task to keep track of everything. And it LOOKS really cool. :)
Dave
Dave
bedifferent
Apr 5, 07:50 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
Come on APPLE! My pocket is full and ready for a New C2D MacBook! :D
mcrain
Mar 22, 08:26 AM
Are you suggesting that Obama has gotten comparable treatment from the media as compared to Bush? The double standard is hilariously transparent... Obama justified, Bush not. Obama builds strong coalition, Bush doesn't. Obama trying to save people, Bush going after the oil. Obama savior, Bush satan.
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
If you actually want change, vote for Ron Paul, vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for small government and non intervention. Vote for the destruction bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and all other forms of crony-capitalism. I can't imagine him being nominated to run for president by the GOP. Did you see that "ghostwritten" pamphlet put out by his campaign? I'm sure he never approved of it, but against the 1st black president? With a son who tripped all over the Civil Rights Act? I hope he mounts a third party campaign. With Palin as VP, or better yet, Palin as a fourth party candidate.
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition: I know, I don't get it either. But, again this is the first week. The only ones "touting" are the white house, and it's already falling on deaf ears and criticism. Already!
NJRonbo
Jun 18, 07:32 AM
There has been a lot of speculation that PIN
numbers were given out as early as 7am that
morning -- well in advance of the 12pm CST
preorder start.
If you read posts here on Mac Rumors you
will see that claim is substantiated.
Very unhappy with the way Radio Shack ran
this entire preorder campaign.
numbers were given out as early as 7am that
morning -- well in advance of the 12pm CST
preorder start.
If you read posts here on Mac Rumors you
will see that claim is substantiated.
Very unhappy with the way Radio Shack ran
this entire preorder campaign.
yoak
Apr 12, 07:25 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
yoak
Apr 11, 03:59 PM
For the past three years, Apple's decisions in the professional market have been a bag of fail.
Anyone else starting to get a sinking feeling?
I don�t. Why would they even bother with a new version of FCS.
I also think Thunderbolt is an indication that Apple are thinking of the pro segment.
I do agree they have focused too much (from my perspective, probably not from the stockholders) on iDevices lately, but I don�t think they will abandon the pro market
Anyone else starting to get a sinking feeling?
I don�t. Why would they even bother with a new version of FCS.
I also think Thunderbolt is an indication that Apple are thinking of the pro segment.
I do agree they have focused too much (from my perspective, probably not from the stockholders) on iDevices lately, but I don�t think they will abandon the pro market
FreeState
Mar 4, 04:41 PM
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
About as logical as "Concerned" Women of America. Somehow you start recognizing gay families rights under the government and men will lose all interest in women, even at the alter!
(Unfortunately this is an actual screen grab of their website from today - they are not homophobic at all, really...)
About as logical as "Concerned" Women of America. Somehow you start recognizing gay families rights under the government and men will lose all interest in women, even at the alter!
(Unfortunately this is an actual screen grab of their website from today - they are not homophobic at all, really...)