While Apple doesn't make any truly "low-end" or "cheap" computers (even Apple barely acknowledges the Mac mini, which is not a "low-end" computer; it's a "low-mid-range" computer, based on specs,) their prices *ARE* in-line with others for the higher-end systems; as the linked article shows.
Microsoft's fallacy is comparing a low-end 17" laptop with a MacBook Pro.
Of *COURSE* you can get similar-screen-size systems from PC makers cheaper. You can also get higher-end systems than Apple's, for commensurately more money.
The only system Apple currently has that is vastly out-of-line price-wise is the single-socket Mac Pro; which, even though they call it a "Workstation" with Xeon processors, is really just a re-badged Core i7 desktop.
Indeed. The SR-71, at Mach 3 and cruising at 80,000 feet, was hit by shrapnel from an attempted shoot down at least once.
A very slow-moving or stationary dirigible at 65,000 feet isn't safe by any possible definition of the word. (Well, I suppose an air force consisting solely of Cessna 172's with gunners sporting.22 hunting rilfes wouldn't pose much of a threat; but that's about it.)
It *MAY* be safe from insurgencies like in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, though.
The article writer mentions that his *non-remote-equipped* headphones cannot control the new shuffle. Well, duh. The article writer mentions that new headphones "need a new chip".
Has this been corroborated by others? Has it been confirmed that existing third-party iPhone headphones won't even allow the click to play/rewind/fast-forward doesn't work? Because this article seems to be drawing a big conclusion from *ONE* set of headphones.
Now, if existing remote-equipped headphones don't work, then yeah, this is pretty lame. But if it's solely because nobody makes third-party headphones with the full remote controls (I have only seen ones for the iPhone, with one clicker and a microphone; not ones that have three clickers to include volume like Apple's,) then it's all speculation.
SLC can handle millions of write cycles; and it's fast. With modern wear-leveling, you could erase and re-write to an SLC drive at maximum speed continuously for years before you would hit the maximum write cycle cap.
The best one at present appears to be the Intel X25-E, which is a whopping $800 street price for the largest 64 GB model. If that isn't large enough, then yo'll have to wait for the 128 GB model.
Intel's X25-M MLC model claims to have way better wear leveling algorithms than most MLC drives; and has demonstratedly better read and write performance than pretty much all other MLC drives; and is available at 160 GB. Even it had a predicted lifespan longer than most rotating drives.
I'm sorry, but requiring that someone not *BLOCK* choice is one thing; but to actively INSIST that they provide a competitor's add-on is something else altogether.
I go to my local Ford dealership. That Ford Focus is made in such a way that any standard stereo can fit in there, no problem. Yet, at the dealership, I can only order it with a Ford stereo system. The government doesn't force Ford to offer you a Sony, Kenwood, or Aiwa stereo system.
Now, yes, the *DEALERSHIP* could choose to offer that to you; but Dell and Sony and HP can all *CHOOSE* to offer you Firefox, Opera, Chrome, etc, as well. So if I really want a Ford Focus with a Sony stereo, I can go to a different dealership that will do that for me. Likewise, if I really want Chrome, I can choose an OEM that will do that for me. (Like Dell.)
I'm all for the original EU order that told them to not contractually require OEMs to put IE, and only IE, on. But this order is, in my mind, going too far.
Funny, I've never used 'bits' to mean decimal powers, except in measuring bandwidth; in which case, it's always in decimal powers.
Likewise, hard drive manufacturers have standardized on decimal powers for all prefixes.
So when they say "2.0 Terabytes", they mean 2 trillion bytes. (Not 15.46 terabits; 2 trillion bytes. Which would be 16 trillion bits.)
However, most mainstream OSes use the powers in the binary sense, so "2.0 Terabytes" would be 2*2^40 bytes. (Yes, I know that's the same as 2^41, but a Terabyte in this sense is 2^40, so I write it as "two of that".)
Yes, I also disagree with the use of the "binary prefixes" mebi, gibi, tebi, etc. I'd like to do away with the *NEED* for two separate prefixes. Just have the whole damn computer industry standardize on one or the other, and get it over with. Either ALWAYS measure in binary exponent, or always measure in decimal exponent. (I'm all for doing away with decimal exponent, then getting rid of the "mebi, gibi" garbage.)
It just happens that when you convert from 'drive manufacturer speak' decimal to 'OS speak' binary exponents, you get the increasing divergence between 'claimed' and 'reported'.
The "64 is slower than 32" argument works for every single (32/64-bit) CPU architecture out there... Except the one most relevant to this article.
The 64-bit extension to "x86" (wether you call it x86-64, x64, AMD64, EM64T, or Intel64,) doubles the number of registers, as well as implementing a brand-new, mandatory FP unit. Therefore, "generic" 64-bit code on x64 will run better than "generic" 32-bit code on the same processor. By a measured increase of 10-15% in most benchmarks. Because Windows is completely recompiled for 64-bit, the OS itself fully benefits from that improvement. Applications, if compiled in 64-bit, will fully benefit. If not 64-bit aware, then they won't be any slower than on a 32-bit OS, simply because they will run in the same 32-bit mode on the processor.
However, it is also possible to generate "x64-aware" 32-bit applications that can take advantage of the extra registers without actually running in 64-bit mode; letting 32-bit apps see the same speed boost. But, that requires a recompile as "x64-aware". I can't find any numbers on any apps that may be aware this way, though.
As for "not even properly using duel core"? Well, first, it's "dual" core. As in two of them. Not "duel", as in fighting. Second, even if your workload consists of apps that are purely single threaded, you still benefit from two cores by letting your workload run on one core, and everything else on the second. Try going in to your BIOS and disabling multi-core, and see how the 'responsiveness' of your OS drops like a rock. Not to mention, many current apps that could conceivably benefit from multiple processors, do. (There are some workloads that truly cannot benefit from more than one core, but those are few and far between.)
I would agree that MORE than two cores tend to go under-utilized, except in certain cases. (Video encoding, rendering, etc.)
Unlike Google News, the Boston Globe is, itself, a news-reporting organization. Mixing their own stories with those from competitors can lead to confusion. I didn't manage to see the offending page before they took down their linked stories; but I imagine it was done in such a way as to have the original source difficult to identify.
A pure aggregator service, like Google News, is different because it is rather obvious that ALL it is doing is aggregating. There is no 'new reporting' being done by "Google".
Copied and pasted to my incompetent representative. (I did edit the "vote for bailout" part, since mine did the wishy-washy vote switch between the first draft and the final.
The whole idea of Wikipedia is its 'crowdsource' nature. It shouldn't be 'perma-locked' this way.
What would be nicer to me is a 'subset' of Wikipedia that was exactly what is suggested here. Something that, among other things, would be 'safe' for use at elementary and middle schools.
I'm an ultra-liberal environmentalist. Bike commute when I can; carpool in my Prius when I can't bike; buy organic, voted for Al Gore, etc, etc, etc...
Yet I can't stand Greenpeace anymore. THey only care about attention, not about actually improving anything. Their biggest complaint about Apple a few years ago wasn't that Apple used bad chemicals, it was that Apple didn't publish their plan to get rid of bad chemicals. Even though Apple used fewer of the bad stuff than most other computer companies; and had stated that they were going to phase it all out "soon", Greenpeace still complained.
HP had a published roadmap showing that they would phase this stuff out in 10 years, so they got a good grade.
Apple says they're going to phase the same stuff out THIS YEAR, and Greenpeace goes after Apple. Why? Because Apple's more prominent, so attacking them gets more press. If they went after Acer, or Asus, or Lenovo, it just wouldn't get Greenpeace as much attention.
I'm sorry, Greenpeace, but you have lost all credibility in my eyes. All you care about it attention.
That's because Mach speeds change their MPH equivalents depending on your altitude.
At ground level, Mach 1 is about 750 miles per hour. At 80,000 feet, it's only about 660 miles per hour. At the internationally-defined "border of space", 100 km, it's about 630 miles per hour.
That may not be a big difference at Mach 1, but at Mach 10, you're talking about a 1000 mph difference.
That was my point exactly. Regardless of wether the viewer considers the look good or bad, it is distinctive. And it is the distinctiveness that is partly responsible for its popularity.
You see it, you *KNOW* it's a "trendy hybrid". (Watch out for that smug, though.)
Disclaimer: I am a Prius driver, but I got mine before it was "trendy", and bought it about 50% for the environment, 50% for the technology. Money savings was never a factor in my calculations, and "coolness" wasn't, either. (I promptly showed it off to my geeky friends for the tech-factor, but didn't make a big deal to, for example, my non-geek mom. Because I knew that, to her, it was just another car. It was only after it started becoming trendy that my mom even noticed.) I am split on the design. I do like the 'futuristic' feel of it, but am not a fan of the hatchback design.
Anyone who wants to cash in on the "trendiness" of the Prius. The unusual shape is probably 50% responsible for the popularity of the Prius. It looks different, so someone looking at it knows it's a hybrid. Unlike the Civic, (now discontinued) Accord, Escape, Camry, and Highlander hybrids. Those may be better cars, and may look better, but they don't scream out "I'm a Hybrid, I'm cool!" the way the Prius does. (To some people, anyway.)
Obviously, the company that made the model doesn't own the copyright on the shape. That, I honestly expected. But does this mean that (in this case,) Toyota doesn't hold the copyright on the raw shape, either?
i.e. I could go and create a car that has 100% the visible shape of the Toyota Prius, but as long as I change enough details (maybe a full-top glass roof, get rid of the hatchback, and obviously not use any Toyota trademarks,) that it would be 100% legal?
So how does this bode for the famous "Coca Cola bottle shape"?
While the raw shape apparently can't be copyrighted, would it still be covered under trademark?
I can't stand "post [xyz] world", "pre [xyz] mindset" or any such similar phrases. Go away, GO AWAY!!!!
Really, the archive is tasked with 'saving' the internet every so often. I'm sure they'll figure out how to save AJAX stuff. And if not, then that stuff isn't really meant to be saved, now is it? (I mean, we don't need a save of Gmail, since it's account based.)
The vast majority of those perks apply only to Google headquarters. Google has many more employees scattered around the country. They get food, yes, but not "professional chef" quality, more like "somewhere between Denny's and Red Robin," and even that is only once a week, tops. Other than that, it's a cabinet full of what would normally be in a vending machine.
No car wash, oil change, dry cleaning, massage, gym, etc, etc, etc. They do have a Wi-Fi equipped shuttle bus, though.
I have multiple friends who work for Google, that used to work for Intel.
They got paid significantly more at Intel, for what was effectively a lower-level job. (Not directly comparable in job function, but in heirarchy.) Google pays on the order of 25% less.
Comparing one single job isn't the way to go. Apple may pay less than Google or Yahoo, but, really, what job position at Apple are they referring to? TFA just say "engineers". Well, what kind? If you're comparing, say, the guy who designs the box that the iPod comes in to the guy who designs Google's customized Linux kernel, then it's not even close to comparable.
Link dead. And has been so since about 2 minutes after MacRumors posted the link. (Well, at least that long. I didn't even see the link when it was live, so for all I know, the link is a fake, and NEVER worked.)
Slashdot Mirror
While Apple doesn't make any truly "low-end" or "cheap" computers (even Apple barely acknowledges the Mac mini, which is not a "low-end" computer; it's a "low-mid-range" computer, based on specs,) their prices *ARE* in-line with others for the higher-end systems; as the linked article shows.
Microsoft's fallacy is comparing a low-end 17" laptop with a MacBook Pro.
Of *COURSE* you can get similar-screen-size systems from PC makers cheaper. You can also get higher-end systems than Apple's, for commensurately more money.
The only system Apple currently has that is vastly out-of-line price-wise is the single-socket Mac Pro; which, even though they call it a "Workstation" with Xeon processors, is really just a re-badged Core i7 desktop.
Watching the NASA TV footage of the Soyuz approaching ISS, I immediately started humming "The Blue Danube"... Anyone else?
Indeed. The SR-71, at Mach 3 and cruising at 80,000 feet, was hit by shrapnel from an attempted shoot down at least once.
A very slow-moving or stationary dirigible at 65,000 feet isn't safe by any possible definition of the word. (Well, I suppose an air force consisting solely of Cessna 172's with gunners sporting .22 hunting rilfes wouldn't pose much of a threat; but that's about it.)
It *MAY* be safe from insurgencies like in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, though.
The article writer mentions that his *non-remote-equipped* headphones cannot control the new shuffle. Well, duh. The article writer mentions that new headphones "need a new chip".
Has this been corroborated by others? Has it been confirmed that existing third-party iPhone headphones won't even allow the click to play/rewind/fast-forward doesn't work? Because this article seems to be drawing a big conclusion from *ONE* set of headphones.
Now, if existing remote-equipped headphones don't work, then yeah, this is pretty lame. But if it's solely because nobody makes third-party headphones with the full remote controls (I have only seen ones for the iPhone, with one clicker and a microphone; not ones that have three clickers to include volume like Apple's,) then it's all speculation.
SLC can handle millions of write cycles; and it's fast. With modern wear-leveling, you could erase and re-write to an SLC drive at maximum speed continuously for years before you would hit the maximum write cycle cap.
The best one at present appears to be the Intel X25-E, which is a whopping $800 street price for the largest 64 GB model. If that isn't large enough, then yo'll have to wait for the 128 GB model.
Intel's X25-M MLC model claims to have way better wear leveling algorithms than most MLC drives; and has demonstratedly better read and write performance than pretty much all other MLC drives; and is available at 160 GB. Even it had a predicted lifespan longer than most rotating drives.
And that's exactly what they did.
It was too late for Netscape; but Microsoft was true and rightly spanked, and now Firefox is gaining.
This is something different.
I'm sorry, but requiring that someone not *BLOCK* choice is one thing; but to actively INSIST that they provide a competitor's add-on is something else altogether.
I go to my local Ford dealership. That Ford Focus is made in such a way that any standard stereo can fit in there, no problem. Yet, at the dealership, I can only order it with a Ford stereo system. The government doesn't force Ford to offer you a Sony, Kenwood, or Aiwa stereo system.
Now, yes, the *DEALERSHIP* could choose to offer that to you; but Dell and Sony and HP can all *CHOOSE* to offer you Firefox, Opera, Chrome, etc, as well. So if I really want a Ford Focus with a Sony stereo, I can go to a different dealership that will do that for me. Likewise, if I really want Chrome, I can choose an OEM that will do that for me. (Like Dell.)
I'm all for the original EU order that told them to not contractually require OEMs to put IE, and only IE, on. But this order is, in my mind, going too far.
First time I've ever heard about it. They've been a good site in the past. Maybe one of their advertising providers is eee-vil?
Funny, I've never used 'bits' to mean decimal powers, except in measuring bandwidth; in which case, it's always in decimal powers.
Likewise, hard drive manufacturers have standardized on decimal powers for all prefixes.
So when they say "2.0 Terabytes", they mean 2 trillion bytes. (Not 15.46 terabits; 2 trillion bytes. Which would be 16 trillion bits.)
However, most mainstream OSes use the powers in the binary sense, so "2.0 Terabytes" would be 2*2^40 bytes. (Yes, I know that's the same as 2^41, but a Terabyte in this sense is 2^40, so I write it as "two of that".)
Yes, I also disagree with the use of the "binary prefixes" mebi, gibi, tebi, etc. I'd like to do away with the *NEED* for two separate prefixes. Just have the whole damn computer industry standardize on one or the other, and get it over with. Either ALWAYS measure in binary exponent, or always measure in decimal exponent. (I'm all for doing away with decimal exponent, then getting rid of the "mebi, gibi" garbage.)
It just happens that when you convert from 'drive manufacturer speak' decimal to 'OS speak' binary exponents, you get the increasing divergence between 'claimed' and 'reported'.
The "64 is slower than 32" argument works for every single (32/64-bit) CPU architecture out there... Except the one most relevant to this article.
The 64-bit extension to "x86" (wether you call it x86-64, x64, AMD64, EM64T, or Intel64,) doubles the number of registers, as well as implementing a brand-new, mandatory FP unit. Therefore, "generic" 64-bit code on x64 will run better than "generic" 32-bit code on the same processor. By a measured increase of 10-15% in most benchmarks. Because Windows is completely recompiled for 64-bit, the OS itself fully benefits from that improvement. Applications, if compiled in 64-bit, will fully benefit. If not 64-bit aware, then they won't be any slower than on a 32-bit OS, simply because they will run in the same 32-bit mode on the processor.
However, it is also possible to generate "x64-aware" 32-bit applications that can take advantage of the extra registers without actually running in 64-bit mode; letting 32-bit apps see the same speed boost. But, that requires a recompile as "x64-aware". I can't find any numbers on any apps that may be aware this way, though.
As for "not even properly using duel core"? Well, first, it's "dual" core. As in two of them. Not "duel", as in fighting. Second, even if your workload consists of apps that are purely single threaded, you still benefit from two cores by letting your workload run on one core, and everything else on the second. Try going in to your BIOS and disabling multi-core, and see how the 'responsiveness' of your OS drops like a rock. Not to mention, many current apps that could conceivably benefit from multiple processors, do. (There are some workloads that truly cannot benefit from more than one core, but those are few and far between.)
I would agree that MORE than two cores tend to go under-utilized, except in certain cases. (Video encoding, rendering, etc.)
Unlike Google News, the Boston Globe is, itself, a news-reporting organization. Mixing their own stories with those from competitors can lead to confusion. I didn't manage to see the offending page before they took down their linked stories; but I imagine it was done in such a way as to have the original source difficult to identify.
A pure aggregator service, like Google News, is different because it is rather obvious that ALL it is doing is aggregating. There is no 'new reporting' being done by "Google".
Copied and pasted to my incompetent representative. (I did edit the "vote for bailout" part, since mine did the wishy-washy vote switch between the first draft and the final.
The whole idea of Wikipedia is its 'crowdsource' nature. It shouldn't be 'perma-locked' this way.
What would be nicer to me is a 'subset' of Wikipedia that was exactly what is suggested here. Something that, among other things, would be 'safe' for use at elementary and middle schools.
I'm an ultra-liberal environmentalist. Bike commute when I can; carpool in my Prius when I can't bike; buy organic, voted for Al Gore, etc, etc, etc...
Yet I can't stand Greenpeace anymore. THey only care about attention, not about actually improving anything. Their biggest complaint about Apple a few years ago wasn't that Apple used bad chemicals, it was that Apple didn't publish their plan to get rid of bad chemicals. Even though Apple used fewer of the bad stuff than most other computer companies; and had stated that they were going to phase it all out "soon", Greenpeace still complained.
HP had a published roadmap showing that they would phase this stuff out in 10 years, so they got a good grade.
Apple says they're going to phase the same stuff out THIS YEAR, and Greenpeace goes after Apple. Why? Because Apple's more prominent, so attacking them gets more press. If they went after Acer, or Asus, or Lenovo, it just wouldn't get Greenpeace as much attention.
I'm sorry, Greenpeace, but you have lost all credibility in my eyes. All you care about it attention.
Yup, works fine for me as well.
That's because Mach speeds change their MPH equivalents depending on your altitude.
At ground level, Mach 1 is about 750 miles per hour. At 80,000 feet, it's only about 660 miles per hour. At the internationally-defined "border of space", 100 km, it's about 630 miles per hour.
That may not be a big difference at Mach 1, but at Mach 10, you're talking about a 1000 mph difference.
That was my point exactly. Regardless of wether the viewer considers the look good or bad, it is distinctive. And it is the distinctiveness that is partly responsible for its popularity.
You see it, you *KNOW* it's a "trendy hybrid". (Watch out for that smug, though.)
Disclaimer: I am a Prius driver, but I got mine before it was "trendy", and bought it about 50% for the environment, 50% for the technology. Money savings was never a factor in my calculations, and "coolness" wasn't, either. (I promptly showed it off to my geeky friends for the tech-factor, but didn't make a big deal to, for example, my non-geek mom. Because I knew that, to her, it was just another car. It was only after it started becoming trendy that my mom even noticed.) I am split on the design. I do like the 'futuristic' feel of it, but am not a fan of the hatchback design.
Anyone who wants to cash in on the "trendiness" of the Prius. The unusual shape is probably 50% responsible for the popularity of the Prius. It looks different, so someone looking at it knows it's a hybrid. Unlike the Civic, (now discontinued) Accord, Escape, Camry, and Highlander hybrids. Those may be better cars, and may look better, but they don't scream out "I'm a Hybrid, I'm cool!" the way the Prius does. (To some people, anyway.)
I'm unclear. (TFA doesn't make it clear.)
Obviously, the company that made the model doesn't own the copyright on the shape. That, I honestly expected. But does this mean that (in this case,) Toyota doesn't hold the copyright on the raw shape, either?
i.e. I could go and create a car that has 100% the visible shape of the Toyota Prius, but as long as I change enough details (maybe a full-top glass roof, get rid of the hatchback, and obviously not use any Toyota trademarks,) that it would be 100% legal?
So how does this bode for the famous "Coca Cola bottle shape"?
While the raw shape apparently can't be copyrighted, would it still be covered under trademark?
AAAARGH!1!
I can't stand "post [xyz] world", "pre [xyz] mindset" or any such similar phrases. Go away, GO AWAY!!!!
Really, the archive is tasked with 'saving' the internet every so often. I'm sure they'll figure out how to save AJAX stuff. And if not, then that stuff isn't really meant to be saved, now is it? (I mean, we don't need a save of Gmail, since it's account based.)
The vast majority of those perks apply only to Google headquarters. Google has many more employees scattered around the country. They get food, yes, but not "professional chef" quality, more like "somewhere between Denny's and Red Robin," and even that is only once a week, tops. Other than that, it's a cabinet full of what would normally be in a vending machine.
No car wash, oil change, dry cleaning, massage, gym, etc, etc, etc. They do have a Wi-Fi equipped shuttle bus, though.
I have multiple friends who work for Google, that used to work for Intel.
They got paid significantly more at Intel, for what was effectively a lower-level job. (Not directly comparable in job function, but in heirarchy.) Google pays on the order of 25% less.
Comparing one single job isn't the way to go. Apple may pay less than Google or Yahoo, but, really, what job position at Apple are they referring to? TFA just say "engineers". Well, what kind? If you're comparing, say, the guy who designs the box that the iPod comes in to the guy who designs Google's customized Linux kernel, then it's not even close to comparable.
Apple Previews Mac OS X Snow Leopard to Developers.
Not much info, though. (P.S. that is a press release, not a live feed from the session.)
Link dead. And has been so since about 2 minutes after MacRumors posted the link. (Well, at least that long. I didn't even see the link when it was live, so for all I know, the link is a fake, and NEVER worked.)
No, because the session on it is going on RIGHT NOW.
And it's under NDA. So no obvious live feeds.
In a couple days, a few developers will leak something, don't worry.