Apple is not going to roll out new computers with a completely new processor design now that the Intel transition is nearing completion.
Apple is very happy with their relationship with Intel and the recent purchase probably has more to do with mobile, server or embedded devices than it does with their computer lines.
Your average Mac gets about 5 years of life and if Apple started cutting into that with DRM... there would be riots. A Mac's lifespan is one of the things we love about our Macs.
Sure, they get a little slower compared to newer machines, but you're not going to shoot that adorable little puppy you bought a few years back just because it got older and a little slower and you see a younger cuter puppy at a pet store are you?
Actually, this is/. you weird bastards are probably going to try and do something seriously weird and dangerous to that dog's innards in order to give it new life.
The company which became IBM was founded in 1888 as the Tabulating Machine Company by Herman Hollerith, in Broome County, New York. It was incorporated as Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR) on June 16, 1911, and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1916. IBM adopted its current name in 1924, when it became a Fortune 500 company.
I had no idea Apple was that old! And here I thought Steve was in his 50's.
Apple makes HUGE margins on their laptops and desktops. Some reports say the highest margins in the whole industry.
iPods, though profitable, are sold at a lower profit margin to move them faster and they make a profit through volume.
Again with the clones. It would RUIN Apple if they tried it again right now. They are selling stuff like crazy now based off the impression that their stuff "just works". Start installing OS X on any old PC with who knows what inside and that experience goes away. It becomes a much more Windows like experience.
Trust me, if Apple ever found a way to ensure the integrity of the experience they're trying to sell, they might consider licensing OS X to 3rd parties, but until then it will never happen.
Nope! We love our new Intel Macs! They're faster than our old G5's!
Really, this whole notion that we need to "be different" is blown way out of proportion. Was I stunned when I heard that Apple was switching to Intel? Sure. I never saw that coming!
I was thrilled to think about the speedy new laptops that would be coming out eventually and the possibilities that Intel Macs afforded a Mac user. I'm not a serious gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but being able to poke around in the world of Windows gaming on my Mac makes me very happy.
If I wanted to I could even goof around with Linux as well... all on my Mac.
As long as Final Cut runs faster and I have the stability that I am accustomed to, I really could care less what chip is in there.
As a 22 year Mac user, I think it's pretty cool to see OS X running on a non-Apple box. Am I going to go out and do that? Probably not. Too much effort and know how required of me to do it and maintain it. I just need a box that works out of the box.
Until Apple does license OS X to 3rd parties, I will stick with Apple brand hardware and applaud the techies out there that love tinkering and making this stuff work on non-apple boxes.
Really. We can all live together. It's not that hard.
Naw. Apple isn't going to sweat this at all. With a record number of Macs sold last quarter, something like this won't even really register on their radar.
They probably love it actually. It's free publicity for them really. More and more people becoming dissatisfied with Windows and doing crazy things like this. It helps Apple by damaging Microsoft.
Apple is really all about the experience, the relatively painless experience of being able to use a computer without really having to think much about the computer. When you need a hammer, you just pick it up and don't worry about the smelting technique used to create the steel the head is made from. Some people will of course and that's their prerogative, but that number of people is very very small. Computers should behave this way for the VAST majority of users out there.
With Apple selling more and more computers these days, we will eventually see price drops. They don't enjoy economy of scale like Dell or HP and that is reflected in their prices... plus some additional markup to keep analysts and shareholders happy.
Yeah, the management at Apple is probably pretty happy over things like this as it increases awareness of OS X, takes pot shots at Windows and they don't have to spend a dime for all this publicity.
Oh trust me. I'm not defending St. Anger, but it was more aggressive sonically than the previous two studio efforts. As for the drums being lost in the mix... uh... that was always one of the biggest complaints with the album. The ring of the snare was way too prevalent... because Lars didn't actually engage the snare on his snare. It was one of the single worst drum recordings in history.
Again, not defending the album, but at least there was some fast playing on it unlike all the strumming and sing songy nonsense on the last 2 albums. There are actually 2 songs on Anger that I can bear listening to unlike Load and Re-load which have not a single second of sound I enjoy.
I saw Metallica live about 2 dozen times. Never once did I see them shorten a justice song. Some songs like "Dyer's Eve" were never played and talking with some people who know the band, the reason was that Lars simply couldn't play them live. The others could, but Lars couldn't hack it.
The drums on Kill 'Em All? All edited together on tape. Cliff, Kirk and James banged out their tracks in no time. Lars took weeks on his drums and most of that time was pent with the engineer splicing tape.
Lars is the Ringo of the band. What you hear on the albums as far as drums go is a result of a lot of tape/digital manipulation and not simple tracking.
Kirk, James and Jason/Cliff would bang their parts out lightning quick and could play them live flawlessly.
Mustaine is a has-been. Megadeth was never as good as Metallica and released some stuff that was even worse than some of Metallica's worst.... and that's sayin something.
Slayer and Anthrax are the only ones of their generation than held onto their integrity for the entirety of their careers.
Megadeth was great in the mid and late 80's, with the exception of 1 album and made a decent album or two in the 90's. Still, they were never as important or as metal as Metallica.
I don't even care if they go back to their roots. If they branch out in some new and unexpected way and blow my mind, I'd be happy. I just want them to make good music... preferably groundbreaking metal like the old days, not necessarily a rehash of the old stuff, but stuff that has the same heart and energy.
This thing called Megadeth... they haven't been a band for about as long as Metallica has sucked. It's just Dave and Dave's Ego. Ellefson isn't even in the band anymore.
What is now Megadeth has about as much in common with it's roots as the current version of G 'n R has with it's roots. They are both simply the egos of two dudes who refuse to move on.
The best thing they could do to support new music is to take small bands on the road with them. New, small bands that they like.
That was the greatest thing about going to shows in SF in the 80's and early 90's. Bands were playing with other bands that they actually enjoyed and we concert goers were exposed to a lot of really great music we might never have heard of otherwise.
Metallica should take Mastodon or Kultur Shock or The Melvins or Nomeansno out on the road with them. Those bands would sell more albums and shorts at one show than they would on 10 small clubs headlining tours combined.
If you're saying that Metallica is just loud and nothing else... you simply don't know much about music. Listen to their 2nd through 4th albums and you will realize that they are actually quite talented players.
Not liking loud and obnoxious music is one thing, but claiming that being loud necessitates a lack of talent is just plain ignorance.
You try playing Damage, Inc. or Battery or Fade to Black start to finish and tell me there is a lack of technical talent.
Trust me... it's not about them cutting their hair. Dude's in Slayer and Anthrax and even Jason Newsted cut their hair well before the Black Album. It was the music on th Black Album that pissed us off.
A band like U2 can change and evolve successfully because they go in wild new directions when the urge strikes them. Metallica devolved with the Black Album. They became "just another rock band" with it. If they released a truly original metal album, something that maybe incorporated elements of jazz arrangements and more intricate percussion or went more in a punk rock vein, the die hards would have stuck with them even if they sold 20 billion copies... if the music was good.
What pissed us off is that they took a step back and created an album of fairly uninspired music that was safe... teenage mall-going girls could listen to it. It lacked energy, it lacked life.
They didn't stretch themselves musically. The just watered down their sound and have stayed in that puddle ever since.
In a way it was a good thing. I no longer had to let them occupy much of my mental space. I could concentrate on new and exciting music like Nomeansno, Buckethead, Mr. Bungle, Primus, Faith No More, Soundgarden, Temple of the Dog, Fishbone, Jane's Addiction, Ministry, Sepultura, Tool, Rage Against the Machine, Nirvana, The Melvins, Mudhoney, Praxis and others.
A lot of us just gave up any hope in real metal when Metallica gave up and found new bands doing new things that we had hoped Metallica would have the guts to do.
Yeah, they were pushing 9 years of total suckage before Lars started yammering about file sharing. In 2000, they had sucked for almost twice as long as they were good! Now they've sucked for 17 years and produce an album about every 5 years and it is garbage.
Their 4 good albums were produced in a 5 year span!
Who cares if he's an asshole? If you like his music... buy it.
Sean Connery is a pretty awful person from the accounts I've read, but I'll still watch his movies because he's usually very good in any role he takes on.
Aping someone's style is one thing. Aping their actual songs is another thing. I'm sure Beatallica legally got permission to record Beatles songs... or those albums wouldn't be on the shelves right now.
Someone can go out of their way and sound exactly like Metallica if they want to as long as they aren't flat out plagiarizing Metallica's material.
So many metal bands totally mimicked Metallica's style in the 80's and even into the 90's and our response to them was... "Wonderful. They sound just like Metallica. Think I'll go home and listen to Puppets instead."
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is not going to roll out new computers with a completely new processor design now that the Intel transition is nearing completion.
/. you weird bastards are probably going to try and do something seriously weird and dangerous to that dog's innards in order to give it new life.
Apple is very happy with their relationship with Intel and the recent purchase probably has more to do with mobile, server or embedded devices than it does with their computer lines.
Your average Mac gets about 5 years of life and if Apple started cutting into that with DRM... there would be riots. A Mac's lifespan is one of the things we love about our Macs.
Sure, they get a little slower compared to newer machines, but you're not going to shoot that adorable little puppy you bought a few years back just because it got older and a little slower and you see a younger cuter puppy at a pet store are you?
Actually, this is
Heh.
The company which became IBM was founded in 1888 as the Tabulating Machine Company by Herman Hollerith, in Broome County, New York. It was incorporated as Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR) on June 16, 1911, and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1916. IBM adopted its current name in 1924, when it became a Fortune 500 company.
I had no idea Apple was that old! And here I thought Steve was in his 50's.
Apple makes HUGE margins on their laptops and desktops. Some reports say the highest margins in the whole industry.
iPods, though profitable, are sold at a lower profit margin to move them faster and they make a profit through volume.
Again with the clones. It would RUIN Apple if they tried it again right now. They are selling stuff like crazy now based off the impression that their stuff "just works". Start installing OS X on any old PC with who knows what inside and that experience goes away. It becomes a much more Windows like experience.
Trust me, if Apple ever found a way to ensure the integrity of the experience they're trying to sell, they might consider licensing OS X to 3rd parties, but until then it will never happen.
Nope! We love our new Intel Macs! They're faster than our old G5's!
Really, this whole notion that we need to "be different" is blown way out of proportion. Was I stunned when I heard that Apple was switching to Intel? Sure. I never saw that coming!
I was thrilled to think about the speedy new laptops that would be coming out eventually and the possibilities that Intel Macs afforded a Mac user. I'm not a serious gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but being able to poke around in the world of Windows gaming on my Mac makes me very happy.
If I wanted to I could even goof around with Linux as well... all on my Mac.
As long as Final Cut runs faster and I have the stability that I am accustomed to, I really could care less what chip is in there.
As a 22 year Mac user, I think it's pretty cool to see OS X running on a non-Apple box. Am I going to go out and do that? Probably not. Too much effort and know how required of me to do it and maintain it. I just need a box that works out of the box.
Until Apple does license OS X to 3rd parties, I will stick with Apple brand hardware and applaud the techies out there that love tinkering and making this stuff work on non-apple boxes.
Really. We can all live together. It's not that hard.
Naw. Apple isn't going to sweat this at all. With a record number of Macs sold last quarter, something like this won't even really register on their radar.
They probably love it actually. It's free publicity for them really. More and more people becoming dissatisfied with Windows and doing crazy things like this. It helps Apple by damaging Microsoft.
Apple is really all about the experience, the relatively painless experience of being able to use a computer without really having to think much about the computer. When you need a hammer, you just pick it up and don't worry about the smelting technique used to create the steel the head is made from. Some people will of course and that's their prerogative, but that number of people is very very small. Computers should behave this way for the VAST majority of users out there.
With Apple selling more and more computers these days, we will eventually see price drops. They don't enjoy economy of scale like Dell or HP and that is reflected in their prices... plus some additional markup to keep analysts and shareholders happy.
Yeah, the management at Apple is probably pretty happy over things like this as it increases awareness of OS X, takes pot shots at Windows and they don't have to spend a dime for all this publicity.
Oh trust me. I'm not defending St. Anger, but it was more aggressive sonically than the previous two studio efforts. As for the drums being lost in the mix... uh... that was always one of the biggest complaints with the album. The ring of the snare was way too prevalent... because Lars didn't actually engage the snare on his snare. It was one of the single worst drum recordings in history.
Again, not defending the album, but at least there was some fast playing on it unlike all the strumming and sing songy nonsense on the last 2 albums. There are actually 2 songs on Anger that I can bear listening to unlike Load and Re-load which have not a single second of sound I enjoy.
I saw Metallica live about 2 dozen times. Never once did I see them shorten a justice song. Some songs like "Dyer's Eve" were never played and talking with some people who know the band, the reason was that Lars simply couldn't play them live. The others could, but Lars couldn't hack it.
The drums on Kill 'Em All? All edited together on tape. Cliff, Kirk and James banged out their tracks in no time. Lars took weeks on his drums and most of that time was pent with the engineer splicing tape.
Lars is the Ringo of the band. What you hear on the albums as far as drums go is a result of a lot of tape/digital manipulation and not simple tracking.
Kirk, James and Jason/Cliff would bang their parts out lightning quick and could play them live flawlessly.
Yeah, these are also probably the people that buy Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park and Twiztid and other 4th generation Metallica wannabes.
Yeah, the people that put these Metallica albums at #1 for the last 17 years have GREAT taste in music.
Mustaine is a has-been. Megadeth was never as good as Metallica and released some stuff that was even worse than some of Metallica's worst.... and that's sayin something.
Slayer and Anthrax are the only ones of their generation than held onto their integrity for the entirety of their careers.
Megadeth was great in the mid and late 80's, with the exception of 1 album and made a decent album or two in the 90's. Still, they were never as important or as metal as Metallica.
Wow. The venom for St. Anger. Not a good album for sure, but it least it had some balls unlike the Black Album or the Load era stuff.
I don't even care if they go back to their roots. If they branch out in some new and unexpected way and blow my mind, I'd be happy. I just want them to make good music... preferably groundbreaking metal like the old days, not necessarily a rehash of the old stuff, but stuff that has the same heart and energy.
Define real metal. I dare you to name a "real" metal band post 1983 that doesn't claim early Metallica as an influence.
This thing called Megadeth... they haven't been a band for about as long as Metallica has sucked. It's just Dave and Dave's Ego. Ellefson isn't even in the band anymore.
What is now Megadeth has about as much in common with it's roots as the current version of G 'n R has with it's roots. They are both simply the egos of two dudes who refuse to move on.
The best thing they could do to support new music is to take small bands on the road with them. New, small bands that they like.
That was the greatest thing about going to shows in SF in the 80's and early 90's. Bands were playing with other bands that they actually enjoyed and we concert goers were exposed to a lot of really great music we might never have heard of otherwise.
Metallica should take Mastodon or Kultur Shock or The Melvins or Nomeansno out on the road with them. Those bands would sell more albums and shorts at one show than they would on 10 small clubs headlining tours combined.
If you're saying that Metallica is just loud and nothing else... you simply don't know much about music. Listen to their 2nd through 4th albums and you will realize that they are actually quite talented players.
Not liking loud and obnoxious music is one thing, but claiming that being loud necessitates a lack of talent is just plain ignorance.
You try playing Damage, Inc. or Battery or Fade to Black start to finish and tell me there is a lack of technical talent.
Trust me... it's not about them cutting their hair. Dude's in Slayer and Anthrax and even Jason Newsted cut their hair well before the Black Album. It was the music on th Black Album that pissed us off.
A band like U2 can change and evolve successfully because they go in wild new directions when the urge strikes them. Metallica devolved with the Black Album. They became "just another rock band" with it. If they released a truly original metal album, something that maybe incorporated elements of jazz arrangements and more intricate percussion or went more in a punk rock vein, the die hards would have stuck with them even if they sold 20 billion copies... if the music was good.
What pissed us off is that they took a step back and created an album of fairly uninspired music that was safe... teenage mall-going girls could listen to it. It lacked energy, it lacked life.
They didn't stretch themselves musically. The just watered down their sound and have stayed in that puddle ever since.
In a way it was a good thing. I no longer had to let them occupy much of my mental space. I could concentrate on new and exciting music like Nomeansno, Buckethead, Mr. Bungle, Primus, Faith No More, Soundgarden, Temple of the Dog, Fishbone, Jane's Addiction, Ministry, Sepultura, Tool, Rage Against the Machine, Nirvana, The Melvins, Mudhoney, Praxis and others.
A lot of us just gave up any hope in real metal when Metallica gave up and found new bands doing new things that we had hoped Metallica would have the guts to do.
This sounds like it might be a reference to a song from Metallica's "post-good" years?
Yeah, they were pushing 9 years of total suckage before Lars started yammering about file sharing. In 2000, they had sucked for almost twice as long as they were good! Now they've sucked for 17 years and produce an album about every 5 years and it is garbage.
Their 4 good albums were produced in a 5 year span!
They are currently finishing up their first album with Trujillo. He was pretty much hired AFTER St. Anger was in the can.
Well, you'll notice that more ofen than not it's Burton era Metallica that makes for great string arrangements.
Not Fuel... not Wherever I May Roam. The Burton stuff was just so magnificently arranged and executed. It was very intricate music.
91 on... rock music. And not very good rock music. Gimme 1975 Aerosmith over 1996 Metallica any day.
Who cares if he's an asshole? If you like his music... buy it.
Sean Connery is a pretty awful person from the accounts I've read, but I'll still watch his movies because he's usually very good in any role he takes on.
Aping someone's style is one thing. Aping their actual songs is another thing. I'm sure Beatallica legally got permission to record Beatles songs... or those albums wouldn't be on the shelves right now.
Someone can go out of their way and sound exactly like Metallica if they want to as long as they aren't flat out plagiarizing Metallica's material.
So many metal bands totally mimicked Metallica's style in the 80's and even into the 90's and our response to them was... "Wonderful. They sound just like Metallica. Think I'll go home and listen to Puppets instead."
HA!
Even better, we still have Slayer and Motorhead and The Melvins and Buckethead.
Yeah, but it blew less than Load or Re-load... not saying much but at least it wasn't straight up pop music.