Note that AMD's claim is to be faster "at the same clock". When the P4 was pushing clock speeds into oblivion, AMD stressed the point that clock speed is irrelevant -- what really counts is how fast the system runs your software. How you get there is quite beside the point. How odd that AMD is now using clock speed as a key indicator.
Ummm... they're not. If they were using clock speed as a metric, they would be saying "Look! We're running at 3.5GHz and Intel is only running at 3GHz!" while completely ignoring the actual performance -- exactly what Intel did all those years. They are instead talking about performance-per-clock-cycle, which (according to this) means that a 2.66GHz AMD chip would be considerably faster than a 3GHz Intel chip. We can expect them to continue touting the overall performance rather than raw clock speed, since they look better from a performance standpoint and worse from a raw clock speed standpoint.
How is that different than what they've been saying all along?
Yeah. Since photons have no charge, a *magnetic* shield doesn't nothing against radiation. This article is about a magnetic shield to deflect charged particles like cosmic rays and solar wind.
It won't stop electromagnetic radiation, but that's not the only kind of radiation. Alpha and beta particles both count as radiation, and they can both be deflected magnetically.
You've got that entirely wrong. Nothing about the Apple TV presumes that you are buying your movies from iTunes.
I have a very large DVD collection, most of which have been ripped, and an Apple TV. By simply adding the movies to my iTunes library (done long ago), I can watch all of my ripped DVDs on any computer or TV in my house, just by picking them from a list. I also have some movies which I purchased from iTunes, simply because it's cheaper and easier than buying the DVD and doing the rip myself. They show up in the same list and work exactly the same. The quality difference between the two types is pretty minimal, to be honest -- the iTunes stuff looks quite good even on my 50" HDTV.
There is no question that Apple TV is solely for "all my stuff is in iTunes" customers. But having all of your content in your iTunes library in no way means that you need to have purchased it from the iTunes Store; you could just as easily have ripped it from CD / DVD or even downloaded it from other sources. And if you already have everything in your iTunes library, the Apple TV is an incredibly slick device.
I get the sense you haven't actually dealt with VM software, since you seem to have some misconceptions.
Two tasks that both need the DVD drive, and heavily, will not benefit from a VM.
Umm... why not? I have two drives in my system. I can give one to each VM if I need to. I could hook up an external one if I really needed more, but I'd more likely just attach an ISO file to one of the VMs and have it pretend it was a real drive.
My system also has four processor cores, meaning that even if I have a couple of VMs and my host OS all doing heavy processing, my system is still fast and responsive.
A VM is a kludge, 2nd best to multiple real computers and/or multiple monitors.
Well, I do have multiple monitors -- that's irrelevant to the question of whether VMs are better than separate physical computers. Why on earth are you calling it a kludge, or inferior? I've tried both setups and I vastly prefer VMs.
By defn a VM accesses the same stuff as your test machine.
Umm... no. By definition a VM accesses the virtual hardware defined by the makers of the VM software. Each VM has the same virtual video card, network adapter, etc. regardless of the real hardware in the system. The only piece of hardware which is "really" visible to the VM is the processor, but given that all major operating systems run on the Intel chips in my box, that's not all that relevant.
The whole point about 2nd (& nth) machine testing, is to test on different platforms.
As far as I'm concerned that's what the QA department is for. Most developers only test their software on a single hardware setup except under special circumstances. Obviously some developers have special needs -- folks doing heavy graphics work need to test on multiple video cards, and in that case a VM is obviously inappropriate. For a typical developer, I don't see how having the second machine be a virtual computer instead of a physical computer is a disadvantage.
Also by defn you don't know what a specific combo of hardware, peripherals and software will do to UltiAp.exe until you try it.
If you're concerned about different software, VMs make the job easier rather than harder. I have access to dozens of VMs, all with different versions of Windows and combinations of software installed. Do that with your measly two physical machines.
Also, just out of curiosity, how often do you see hardware-specific bugs? I'm sure it's different if you're a game developer or whatnot, but for the software I develop on a daily basis I have only seen one hardware-specific bug in the last ten years, and that only happened if you weren't using the latest drivers. Again, VMs are obviously a no-go for game developers (they're just barely starting to emulate 3D hardware in the first place), but for people developing business applications and such I can't imagine they're running into too many hardware-specific issues. I'm certainly not.
Virtual machine software is far superior to the setup you describe. I do Windows software development under Mac OS X using virtual machines. I have one VM for doing actual development and one or more VMs for doing testing, and I can run all of them at the same time without messing up my host OS. Plus you get all the advantages of virtual machines, like being able to easily copy them and move them to different physical machines.
Plus I can copy / paste between all of the OS's as well as drag and drop files between them. There really is no advantage to having more than one physical computer with a setup like this. Of course you do need a fast system with lots of memory, but that's not hard to accomplish nowadays.
When Frys is running a good sale, I can get the expandability equivalent of a Mac Pro with a normal PC for $200. Under normal circumstances, that figure is ~ $400. At that price, I can still get a relatively low profile system too.
What the flying fuck? Have you even seen a Mac Pro in person? You're basically arguing that a Ferrari isn't any nicer than a Geo Metro because they both seat four people and have steering wheels. Go price out an equivalent system at a major PC manufacturer like Dell, and tell me how close you can get for $200 or even $400. Or perhaps you weren't aware that the Mac Pro was actually far cheaper than equivalent Dell systems upon its release?
The Mac Pro is a dual processor, dual core system with workstation class hardware and top of the line specs, not some shitty stamped sheetmetal no-name Taiwanese knockoff piece of crap. And considering what you get software and hardware wise, it's actually quite cheap.
And everybody else's point is that nobody gives a rat's ass if the general public understands it or not. What matters is whether the legal system understands it. This is not illegal and I have full confidence that any judge is smart enough to understand that.
More than a few, I'm sure. My mother actually bought the HD-DVD version of a movie, because she knew she had HDTV and a DVD player and assumed that it would work. And I'm not sure if I'm just going easy on her because she's my mom, but it seemed like a perfectly reasonable mistake for a layperson to make.
You're saying you can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1280x720 on, say, your computer monitor? You need to make an appointment with an eye doctor.
I can easily see the difference between 720p and 480p on a 42" plasma.
Because it's not a secret that Samsung makes phones, and nobody is going to go shouting "OMFG SAMSUNG JUST GOT FCC APPROVAL FOR A NEW PHONE!!!!11!!11". Apple's development of the iPhone was (sort of) a secret, and thus the FCC approval would have been a dead giveaway. Plus there are a hell of a lot more folks slobbering over Apple's secret projects than most other companies' secret projects, so much higher likelihood of the FCC approval getting noticed in the first place.
Evidentally, some part of the universe simply has not yet been observed and recorded.
A (potentially gigantic) chunk of the universe cannot be observed and recorded. The initial expansion of the universe exceeded the speed of light, and therefore there is matter so far away from us that its light has not yet reached us.
As a simple thought experiment to convince you that the expansion was superluminal: according to the Big Bang theory, the universe exploded from a singularity. Well, what happens when you have a whole crapload of matter in one place and then try to separate it from each other? Gravity promptly squashes it back together again, and in this case we're talking the gravity of perhaps quintillions of stars all in one place. In other words, you've got the biggest black hole imaginable, and nothing within the event horizon can escape, even at the speed of light.
There are only a couple possible ways to separate that much matter and form a universe out of it. Perhaps the laws of physics behaved differently during this early period -- gravity wasn't yet in effect or somesuch. Perhaps the big bang theory is utterly incorrect. Or, as physicists maintain, perhaps space itself expanded, allowing the matter to move at subluminal velocities relative to space yet at superluminal velocities relative to the center of the explosion.
I'm not a physicist, but I don't believe that this last explanation (known as inflation) is seriously questioned. Matter wasn't "really" moving faster than the speed of light, because the space was moving with it, but to an outside observer (if such were possible) it sure as hell would have looked like it.
It's not that simple. We obviously can't account for each chunk of rock orbiting the Sun, but we also don't need to. We instead make very precise measurements of the orbits of the outer planets, and those orbits do reflect every speck of dust in the solar system. What we're seeing is that Pioneer's path does not reflect exactly the same forces that the outer planets agree are present, and that's the part that's hard to explain.
Note that this argument also gives a pretty clear idea of why most scientists don't seriously think that there is new physics involved here -- if (say) gravity operated differently at extreme distances, it would already have shown up in the orbits of the outer planets. Instead we see all of the outer planets in precise agreement about all of the forces, and then Pioneer having a dissenting opinion for some reason. So most of the searching is for Pioneer-specific effects, like dust (which wouldn't measurably slow down somethng the size of a planet) or gas leakages.
There is no context in which is appropriate to apply metric reasoning to computers.
It's exactly this kind of bullshit that irritates me. Suppose you look at a file. It's 95,015,327 bytes long. You're claiming that referring to the file as being 95MB is "inappropriate"?
I'm a software engineer, fully versed in binary math, and the fact that computers refer to that file as being 90MB still really pisses me off. It's pointless and annoying.
Just means that they are a government contractor, and will manage to pass the bill on to the government by padding their contracts. A quarter million here, half a million there, and who will even notice? The taxpayers? Ha!
More seriously, unless/until they embrace third-party applications on the iPhone, only the Paris Hiltons (and other stupid spoiled whores) of the world will be using them. That and some PHBs. But they can't replace smartphones that let you run, you know, any software you like. I'm looking forward to the proliferation of cheap linux phones. My ideal phone would be a RAZR with a higher-res display (at least QVGA) running Linux... I could even live without touch.
So... the guy that's drooling over a Linux phone is qualified to report on what the rest of the world is or is not interested in? Slashdot also predicted that the iPod would be a miserable failure. You're free to have your own interests, but please don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way.
Especially in the desktop arena, paying $600 for Mac mini is beyond insane.
Bwuh? I suppose you can point to a similarly small Windows machine with comparable hardware, running similar quality software (XP Pro + tools competitive with iLife) for substantially less money? Because if you're going to call something "beyond insane" you better show me a hell of a deal on a good Windows competitor.
Of course I know perfectly damned well you can't. You're going to make the argument that the size of the machine doesn't count, that some no-name Chinese knock-off hardware is comparable to what Apple is using, and that XP Home completely infested with crappy software is equivalent to OS X and iLife.
Yes. you pay a bit of a premium to get a Mac Mini relative to some huge ugly Windows box. But firstly it's not a big premium, and secondly calling someone "beyond insane" for being willing to pay a bit more for nice hardware and software is... well, I suppose it's just you being an asshole.
For a more complete picture, you need to realise that there are almost as many unemployed in India as there are people in the US. So yes, that money could have been put to better use. I could start many, many businesses, even industries, with $900 million.
When people spend money, it's not like the money goes into a giant pit which they then light on fire. The money goes to scientists, lab technicians, programmers, janitors, and countless other employees directly or indirectly involved in the space program. Most of the money probably remained in India, but even the portion that was used to purchase foreign parts and labor isn't "gone" -- in a global economy, spreading money around often benefits everyone.
You could start an entire industry with $900 million dollars? You don't say! Maybe that's why that is exactly what India is doing with it -- the space industry, to be precise.
And sometimes Apple products even come preloaded with spyware, etc. that nestle in and attach Windows machines as soon as the 'regular Windows folks' sync them.
Bwuh? Care to explain what the hell you're talking about?
I've been saying 'Fuck You!' to Steve Jobs ever since he smugly announced the unopenable, unupgradable original Macintosh, which he called 'Hacker Proof' at a National Press Club event in the mid 80's.
So... You didn't like his policies 20 years ago, and you're still holding a grudge about it?
I own and admire a lot of Apple hardware in my 'vintage computer' collection, but only the way a mortician would. It's plain consumer junk compared to my SGI and Sun hardware.
Really? A consumer-oriented computer is "consumer junk", whereas workstation and server computers are higher-end? Say it isn't so!
Apple systems weren't designed to compete with SGI and Sun boxes, so I can't imagine how you would be surprised at the difference. However, things have changed -- I'm typing this on a Mac Pro, which I would happily compare to any other workstation hardware on the market. You might legitimately complain about the difficulty of upgrading Apple's smaller systems -- iMacs and Minis are not to be opened by the faint of heart -- but you can't reasonably complain about the quality of their current hardware.
You're significantly overstating the case here. This just states that it is legal to change a phone's firmware with the intention of allowing it to connect to a different network.
Great, so it isn't a crime to modify the firmware in order to unlock the phone and put it on a different network -- that hardly means Apple is incorrect in saying "Cingular only". You can't even buy the thing without agreeing to a two-year contract.
That's a good point. Everyone knows that people target only the operating system. No self-respecting hacker would ever attack a third-party tool to gain access to a system, right?
So it would be fair to declare a "Month of Microsoft Bugs" and then reveal bugs that Microsoft had nothing to do with?
The fact that it's not a UB is a big setback - just about everyone I know who does video on a Mac is still on PPC. Why? Because all the coder and sysadmin kiddies with the macbooks make about two to three times the cash that we do.
Universal Binary refers to a program which includes both PPC and Intel code and can therefore run on both platforms. "Non-UB" does not mean "PPC-only", it means "either PPC-only or Intel-only". And in this case Premiere is going to be Intel-only and therefore will not run on your G5s. It's sad that Adobe seems to be the only company really having trouble supporting both platforms...
Slashdot Mirror
Note that AMD's claim is to be faster "at the same clock". When the P4 was pushing clock speeds into oblivion, AMD stressed the point that clock speed is irrelevant -- what really counts is how fast the system runs your software. How you get there is quite beside the point. How odd that AMD is now using clock speed as a key indicator.
Ummm... they're not. If they were using clock speed as a metric, they would be saying "Look! We're running at 3.5GHz and Intel is only running at 3GHz!" while completely ignoring the actual performance -- exactly what Intel did all those years. They are instead talking about performance-per-clock-cycle, which (according to this) means that a 2.66GHz AMD chip would be considerably faster than a 3GHz Intel chip. We can expect them to continue touting the overall performance rather than raw clock speed, since they look better from a performance standpoint and worse from a raw clock speed standpoint.
How is that different than what they've been saying all along?
Yeah. Since photons have no charge, a *magnetic* shield doesn't nothing against radiation. This article is about a magnetic shield to deflect charged particles like cosmic rays and solar wind.
It won't stop electromagnetic radiation, but that's not the only kind of radiation. Alpha and beta particles both count as radiation, and they can both be deflected magnetically.
You've got that entirely wrong. Nothing about the Apple TV presumes that you are buying your movies from iTunes.
I have a very large DVD collection, most of which have been ripped, and an Apple TV. By simply adding the movies to my iTunes library (done long ago), I can watch all of my ripped DVDs on any computer or TV in my house, just by picking them from a list. I also have some movies which I purchased from iTunes, simply because it's cheaper and easier than buying the DVD and doing the rip myself. They show up in the same list and work exactly the same. The quality difference between the two types is pretty minimal, to be honest -- the iTunes stuff looks quite good even on my 50" HDTV.
There is no question that Apple TV is solely for "all my stuff is in iTunes" customers. But having all of your content in your iTunes library in no way means that you need to have purchased it from the iTunes Store; you could just as easily have ripped it from CD / DVD or even downloaded it from other sources. And if you already have everything in your iTunes library, the Apple TV is an incredibly slick device.
I get the sense you haven't actually dealt with VM software, since you seem to have some misconceptions.
Two tasks that both need the DVD drive, and heavily, will not benefit from a VM.
Umm... why not? I have two drives in my system. I can give one to each VM if I need to. I could hook up an external one if I really needed more, but I'd more likely just attach an ISO file to one of the VMs and have it pretend it was a real drive.
My system also has four processor cores, meaning that even if I have a couple of VMs and my host OS all doing heavy processing, my system is still fast and responsive.
A VM is a kludge, 2nd best to multiple real computers and/or multiple monitors.
Well, I do have multiple monitors -- that's irrelevant to the question of whether VMs are better than separate physical computers. Why on earth are you calling it a kludge, or inferior? I've tried both setups and I vastly prefer VMs.
By defn a VM accesses the same stuff as your test machine.
Umm... no. By definition a VM accesses the virtual hardware defined by the makers of the VM software. Each VM has the same virtual video card, network adapter, etc. regardless of the real hardware in the system. The only piece of hardware which is "really" visible to the VM is the processor, but given that all major operating systems run on the Intel chips in my box, that's not all that relevant.
The whole point about 2nd (& nth) machine testing, is to test on different platforms.
As far as I'm concerned that's what the QA department is for. Most developers only test their software on a single hardware setup except under special circumstances. Obviously some developers have special needs -- folks doing heavy graphics work need to test on multiple video cards, and in that case a VM is obviously inappropriate. For a typical developer, I don't see how having the second machine be a virtual computer instead of a physical computer is a disadvantage.
Also by defn you don't know what a specific combo of hardware, peripherals and software will do to UltiAp.exe until you try it.
If you're concerned about different software, VMs make the job easier rather than harder. I have access to dozens of VMs, all with different versions of Windows and combinations of software installed. Do that with your measly two physical machines.
Also, just out of curiosity, how often do you see hardware-specific bugs? I'm sure it's different if you're a game developer or whatnot, but for the software I develop on a daily basis I have only seen one hardware-specific bug in the last ten years, and that only happened if you weren't using the latest drivers. Again, VMs are obviously a no-go for game developers (they're just barely starting to emulate 3D hardware in the first place), but for people developing business applications and such I can't imagine they're running into too many hardware-specific issues. I'm certainly not.
Virtual machine software is far superior to the setup you describe. I do Windows software development under Mac OS X using virtual machines. I have one VM for doing actual development and one or more VMs for doing testing, and I can run all of them at the same time without messing up my host OS. Plus you get all the advantages of virtual machines, like being able to easily copy them and move them to different physical machines.
Plus I can copy / paste between all of the OS's as well as drag and drop files between them. There really is no advantage to having more than one physical computer with a setup like this. Of course you do need a fast system with lots of memory, but that's not hard to accomplish nowadays.
Mac Pro's are also rediculously overpriced.
When Frys is running a good sale, I can get the expandability equivalent of a
Mac Pro with a normal PC for $200. Under normal circumstances, that figure is
~ $400. At that price, I can still get a relatively low profile system too.
What the flying fuck? Have you even seen a Mac Pro in person? You're basically arguing that a Ferrari isn't any nicer than a Geo Metro because they both seat four people and have steering wheels. Go price out an equivalent system at a major PC manufacturer like Dell, and tell me how close you can get for $200 or even $400. Or perhaps you weren't aware that the Mac Pro was actually far cheaper than equivalent Dell systems upon its release?
The Mac Pro is a dual processor, dual core system with workstation class hardware and top of the line specs, not some shitty stamped sheetmetal no-name Taiwanese knockoff piece of crap. And considering what you get software and hardware wise, it's actually quite cheap.
And everybody else's point is that nobody gives a rat's ass if the general public understands it or not. What matters is whether the legal system understands it. This is not illegal and I have full confidence that any judge is smart enough to understand that.
Only a fool runs anything of importance, without a backup, on a hard drive that is over 3 years old.
That sentence should have ended right after "without a backup".
More than a few, I'm sure. My mother actually bought the HD-DVD version of a movie, because she knew she had HDTV and a DVD player and assumed that it would work. And I'm not sure if I'm just going easy on her because she's my mom, but it seemed like a perfectly reasonable mistake for a layperson to make.
You're saying you can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1280x720 on, say, your computer monitor? You need to make an appointment with an eye doctor.
I can easily see the difference between 720p and 480p on a 42" plasma.
Because it's not a secret that Samsung makes phones, and nobody is going to go shouting "OMFG SAMSUNG JUST GOT FCC APPROVAL FOR A NEW PHONE!!!!11!!11". Apple's development of the iPhone was (sort of) a secret, and thus the FCC approval would have been a dead giveaway. Plus there are a hell of a lot more folks slobbering over Apple's secret projects than most other companies' secret projects, so much higher likelihood of the FCC approval getting noticed in the first place.
Evidentally, some part of the universe simply has not yet been observed and recorded.
A (potentially gigantic) chunk of the universe cannot be observed and recorded. The initial expansion of the universe exceeded the speed of light, and therefore there is matter so far away from us that its light has not yet reached us.
As a simple thought experiment to convince you that the expansion was superluminal: according to the Big Bang theory, the universe exploded from a singularity. Well, what happens when you have a whole crapload of matter in one place and then try to separate it from each other? Gravity promptly squashes it back together again, and in this case we're talking the gravity of perhaps quintillions of stars all in one place. In other words, you've got the biggest black hole imaginable, and nothing within the event horizon can escape, even at the speed of light.
There are only a couple possible ways to separate that much matter and form a universe out of it. Perhaps the laws of physics behaved differently during this early period -- gravity wasn't yet in effect or somesuch. Perhaps the big bang theory is utterly incorrect. Or, as physicists maintain, perhaps space itself expanded, allowing the matter to move at subluminal velocities relative to space yet at superluminal velocities relative to the center of the explosion.
I'm not a physicist, but I don't believe that this last explanation (known as inflation) is seriously questioned. Matter wasn't "really" moving faster than the speed of light, because the space was moving with it, but to an outside observer (if such were possible) it sure as hell would have looked like it.
It's not that simple. We obviously can't account for each chunk of rock orbiting the Sun, but we also don't need to. We instead make very precise measurements of the orbits of the outer planets, and those orbits do reflect every speck of dust in the solar system. What we're seeing is that Pioneer's path does not reflect exactly the same forces that the outer planets agree are present, and that's the part that's hard to explain.
Note that this argument also gives a pretty clear idea of why most scientists don't seriously think that there is new physics involved here -- if (say) gravity operated differently at extreme distances, it would already have shown up in the orbits of the outer planets. Instead we see all of the outer planets in precise agreement about all of the forces, and then Pioneer having a dissenting opinion for some reason. So most of the searching is for Pioneer-specific effects, like dust (which wouldn't measurably slow down somethng the size of a planet) or gas leakages.
There is no context in which is appropriate to apply metric reasoning to computers.
It's exactly this kind of bullshit that irritates me. Suppose you look at a file. It's 95,015,327 bytes long. You're claiming that referring to the file as being 95MB is "inappropriate"?
I'm a software engineer, fully versed in binary math, and the fact that computers refer to that file as being 90MB still really pisses me off. It's pointless and annoying.
Just means that they are a government contractor, and will manage to pass the bill on to the government by padding their contracts. A quarter million here, half a million there, and who will even notice? The taxpayers? Ha!
More seriously, unless/until they embrace third-party applications on the iPhone, only the Paris Hiltons (and other stupid spoiled whores) of the world will be using them. That and some PHBs. But they can't replace smartphones that let you run, you know, any software you like. I'm looking forward to the proliferation of cheap linux phones. My ideal phone would be a RAZR with a higher-res display (at least QVGA) running Linux... I could even live without touch.
So... the guy that's drooling over a Linux phone is qualified to report on what the rest of the world is or is not interested in? Slashdot also predicted that the iPod would be a miserable failure. You're free to have your own interests, but please don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way.
Especially in the desktop arena, paying $600 for Mac mini is beyond insane.
Bwuh? I suppose you can point to a similarly small Windows machine with comparable hardware, running similar quality software (XP Pro + tools competitive with iLife) for substantially less money? Because if you're going to call something "beyond insane" you better show me a hell of a deal on a good Windows competitor.
Of course I know perfectly damned well you can't. You're going to make the argument that the size of the machine doesn't count, that some no-name Chinese knock-off hardware is comparable to what Apple is using, and that XP Home completely infested with crappy software is equivalent to OS X and iLife.
Yes. you pay a bit of a premium to get a Mac Mini relative to some huge ugly Windows box. But firstly it's not a big premium, and secondly calling someone "beyond insane" for being willing to pay a bit more for nice hardware and software is... well, I suppose it's just you being an asshole.
(Disclaimer: Typing this on a Mac Pro)
Come on, these ads try to suggest that photo albums and videos/music are only available on the Mac. Please.
Windows doesn't really have anything comparable to iLife. I eventually gave up and switched to a Mac specifically for iPhoto.
The Apple TV is pretty close to what you're looking for.
For a more complete picture, you need to realise that there are almost as many unemployed in India as there are people in the US. So yes, that money could have been put to better use. I could start many, many businesses, even industries, with $900 million.
When people spend money, it's not like the money goes into a giant pit which they then light on fire. The money goes to scientists, lab technicians, programmers, janitors, and countless other employees directly or indirectly involved in the space program. Most of the money probably remained in India, but even the portion that was used to purchase foreign parts and labor isn't "gone" -- in a global economy, spreading money around often benefits everyone.
You could start an entire industry with $900 million dollars? You don't say! Maybe that's why that is exactly what India is doing with it -- the space industry, to be precise.
And sometimes Apple products even come preloaded with spyware, etc. that nestle in and attach Windows machines as soon as the 'regular Windows folks' sync them.
Bwuh? Care to explain what the hell you're talking about?
I've been saying 'Fuck You!' to Steve Jobs ever since he smugly announced the unopenable, unupgradable original Macintosh, which he called 'Hacker Proof' at a National Press Club event in the mid 80's.
So... You didn't like his policies 20 years ago, and you're still holding a grudge about it?
I own and admire a lot of Apple hardware in my 'vintage computer' collection, but only the way a mortician would. It's plain consumer junk compared to my SGI and Sun hardware.
Really? A consumer-oriented computer is "consumer junk", whereas workstation and server computers are higher-end? Say it isn't so!
Apple systems weren't designed to compete with SGI and Sun boxes, so I can't imagine how you would be surprised at the difference. However, things have changed -- I'm typing this on a Mac Pro, which I would happily compare to any other workstation hardware on the market. You might legitimately complain about the difficulty of upgrading Apple's smaller systems -- iMacs and Minis are not to be opened by the faint of heart -- but you can't reasonably complain about the quality of their current hardware.
You're significantly overstating the case here. This just states that it is legal to change a phone's firmware with the intention of allowing it to connect to a different network.
Great, so it isn't a crime to modify the firmware in order to unlock the phone and put it on a different network -- that hardly means Apple is incorrect in saying "Cingular only". You can't even buy the thing without agreeing to a two-year contract.
That's a good point. Everyone knows that people target only the operating system. No self-respecting hacker would ever attack a third-party tool to gain access to a system, right?
So it would be fair to declare a "Month of Microsoft Bugs" and then reveal bugs that Microsoft had nothing to do with?
I'm going to have to buy two of these things (one for my wife as well). Can't believe I have to wait until June!
The fact that it's not a UB is a big setback - just about everyone I know who does video on a Mac is still on PPC. Why? Because all the coder and sysadmin kiddies with the macbooks make about two to three times the cash that we do.
Universal Binary refers to a program which includes both PPC and Intel code and can therefore run on both platforms. "Non-UB" does not mean "PPC-only", it means "either PPC-only or Intel-only". And in this case Premiere is going to be Intel-only and therefore will not run on your G5s. It's sad that Adobe seems to be the only company really having trouble supporting both platforms...