Try putting a large, bulky, weighted apron on that Pittsburg Steeler, and see how easy it is for him to reach around to handle a door knob, a pull handle, a push handle, or a push plate ^^
I probably should have mentioned the cabinets, rather than the countertops ^^
I can reach all the cabinets, but my girlfriend can't
It's a side effect of society. When you have male architects, doctors, civil engineers, politicians, and transportation engineers, things are by *default* designed for men.
Are countertops designed around a woman's height?
Are doors built to accomodate pregnant women?
Are computers designed to accomodate women's cultural thought processes?
And I'm sure the anti-Apple mods will say this is overrated, flamebait, or whatnot, but there is a *reason* Apple's been spending big bucks on DVD production software.
$1,100 eMac and you get iDVD4, the *best* DVD software I have ever seen. For an additional $300, you can get DVD Studio Pro, which offers *everything* in DVD production (literally, since it can make professional level DVDs!)
Unfortunately those solutions *require* a Mac.
But if you want to make the best DVDs, *hands down*, and simply, you need a Mac.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but that wasn't my point : )
Faster PCs should yield faster results, in proportion with technology.
However, and this was my point, I don't see why anyone would expect final ram usage to go down.
Ideally this means *useful* things will be implemented.
Those who saw my question as anti Microsoft think I'm being sarcastic.
I own a Mac, and really, Apple does implement useful things, at the expense of ram. Expose, built in spell check, Rendezvous networking, UI animations, real 3d acceleration, real wysiwyg, etc.
If 10.4 beta has clocked in as consuming 400mb, I actually *would* expect it to go down in size, that or Apple would keep implementing *useful* things to take advantage of increased base memory configurations.
It's a legitimate point, I asked why it was obvious the final release will take less memory?
I would fully expect all OSes in 2005 to take more than 256mb; possibly even 512mb. Microsoft would just happen to be one of many. If this were a Linux article, I would have asked the same question. I use a Mac, and I *know* how much memory OS X likes, and am under no illusions that 10.5 won't take as much!
Why is it obvious that an OS in two years won't consume 400mb of ram?
What will the base system Microsoft target contain, in terms of memory?
Right now 512mb of ram is $100.
In a year then it might be $50 or $60. Or it might mean a base system will contain 1gb of ram, and everyone will have 64bit CPUs capable of addressing 16gb, or 32gb of ram. We already have desktops today that can address 8gb, and we're only waiting on ram sticks to increase in density.
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
You don't think Microsoft can figure out 10 more things to implement in the next 2 years to consume any ram they happen to free up through optimization?
From the submission blurb: Furthermore, there is evidence in the record suggesting that a phone call from AOL subscriber John J. Miller to AOL should have put AOL on notice of the infringing activity on the particular USENET group at issue in this case, "alt.binaries.e-book."
Re:Kinda validate their price point
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Selling out on launch isn't impressive?
Okay, that's your opinion, fine. However, couple that with, "but given the fact that they've now sold out, Apple would have been stupid to set a lower price," and you're being somewhat silly.
A) Set a price at $250. Sell out B) Set a price at $200. Sell out
Which one *logically* is more intelligent.
Apple chose A. *If* they need to lower the price, they have that choice. If they don't, they can keep the price high.
What you imply is Apple should have set B; and if they did that, they would have lost at least $5,000,000 in preorders as it were, not counting the sales channel!
Dollar for dollar, a laptop *will* last exactly as long as a desktop.
The device is not obsoleted by the release of new hardware, the device is obsoleted by the needs and requirements of the user.
If you buy the PowerBook now for features X, Y, and Z, and are satisfied, then you should have no problems doing X, Y, and Z for the next N years as well. This carries just as well for the desktop as the laptop.
The difference is that a desktop is more flexible, in that you can upgrade and replace components to meet future needs; however, this is untrue in *this* situation because we are comparing to a G3 iMac and a G4 iMac, both of which cannot be upgraded like the conventional view of a desktop!
Here's my logic:
Happy with 800MHz G4 1.25GHz G4 will make him happy too 1.25GHz G4 will last him longer than an 800MHz G4
Happy with a 500MHz G3 Long life with a 500MHz G3 Longer life with a 1.25GHz G4
As per cost? That's up to the buyer, as to what he can and is willing to pay.
So you have a 500MHz G3, spent $1,100 on it, and it's lasted you 4 years.
You have an 800MHz G4 and you think the 1.25GHz PowerBook would be hands down better.
Why do you think $2,500 spent now won't last you for, oh, 5 years? Why do you think it would be obsolete in two months if your G3 isn't obsoleted by your G4?
Just because Apple releases a G5 doesn't make the G4 obsolete. The *only* reasonable argument I can come up with is if Apple releases the G5, then you can purchase a G4 PowerBook for even less!
There are plenty of 1.3 GHz P3 equiv Macs out there! (of course they aren't laptops... but on the other hand, the Mac laptops will have higher interconnects, so the bottleneck will probably be CPU over bandwidth)
Or are you talking about 256mb?
Are you talking about Linux?
Or are you talking about the fact that the organizers won't know what to do with Macs?
I never expected you to pay double for the imported (scalped? Why do you call it that? Are Ferrari's imported into the US scalped?) goods.
I think I mean that if you wouldn't buy the originals (scalped, as you put it) you shouldn't be buying the knockoffs. The concept of tit for tat exists, and if we/you/I can't be expected to live by some set of expected behaviors, we can't and shouldn't expect anyone else to either.
This means of course people downloading music they can't afford, with the logic that they can't afford it, but they *can* afford the downloaded version, people using pirated software for the same reason, or buying knockoff VCDs, or pirated DVDs... It's not like it's one way here. Our movies, games, and products are heavily pirated around the world too. But if you think that's okay, then that also justifies your behavior in buying knockoffs.
I've bought a couple SonMay in my time, when I thought it was a good deal... but after I found out, I stopped buying.
Not because I'm rich, but because I think if I love something, I shouldn't be cheating them. So I buy my music legit, mostly. I have a few odd unbought tracks, but as I earn money I put my money where my mouth is ^^
Slashdot Mirror
You're suggesting that just because Microsoft does it horribly, so should Debian?
Have you seen an Apple installer?
Try putting a large, bulky, weighted apron on that Pittsburg Steeler, and see how easy it is for him to reach around to handle a door knob, a pull handle, a push handle, or a push plate ^^
I probably should have mentioned the cabinets, rather than the countertops ^^
I can reach all the cabinets, but my girlfriend can't
It's a side effect of society. When you have male architects, doctors, civil engineers, politicians, and transportation engineers, things are by *default* designed for men.
Are countertops designed around a woman's height?
Are doors built to accomodate pregnant women?
Are computers designed to accomodate women's cultural thought processes?
And I'm sure the anti-Apple mods will say this is overrated, flamebait, or whatnot, but there is a *reason* Apple's been spending big bucks on DVD production software.
$1,100 eMac and you get iDVD4, the *best* DVD software I have ever seen. For an additional $300, you can get DVD Studio Pro, which offers *everything* in DVD production (literally, since it can make professional level DVDs!)
Unfortunately those solutions *require* a Mac.
But if you want to make the best DVDs, *hands down*, and simply, you need a Mac.
So what you really mean is, "Besides, [I think] apple wants to make money on the music, not [as they currently with] the hardware."
You've got it backward ^^
They make money on the hardware, not the music. Therefore the harm.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but that wasn't my point : )
Faster PCs should yield faster results, in proportion with technology.
However, and this was my point, I don't see why anyone would expect final ram usage to go down.
Ideally this means *useful* things will be implemented.
Those who saw my question as anti Microsoft think I'm being sarcastic.
I own a Mac, and really, Apple does implement useful things, at the expense of ram. Expose, built in spell check, Rendezvous networking, UI animations, real 3d acceleration, real wysiwyg, etc.
If 10.4 beta has clocked in as consuming 400mb, I actually *would* expect it to go down in size, that or Apple would keep implementing *useful* things to take advantage of increased base memory configurations.
Uh, 8gb is already well past 32bits, regardless of 64bit OS X or not.
And 16gb will be hit just as handily, I think.
A G5 has 8 slots, so you could populate it, when 2gb dimms appear, with 16gb of ram.
How is mine *anti* Microsoft?
It's a legitimate point, I asked why it was obvious the final release will take less memory?
I would fully expect all OSes in 2005 to take more than 256mb; possibly even 512mb. Microsoft would just happen to be one of many. If this were a Linux article, I would have asked the same question. I use a Mac, and I *know* how much memory OS X likes, and am under no illusions that 10.5 won't take as much!
Why is this flamebait?
Why is it obvious that an OS in two years won't consume 400mb of ram?
What will the base system Microsoft target contain, in terms of memory?
Right now 512mb of ram is $100.
In a year then it might be $50 or $60. Or it might mean a base system will contain 1gb of ram, and everyone will have 64bit CPUs capable of addressing 16gb, or 32gb of ram. We already have desktops today that can address 8gb, and we're only waiting on ram sticks to increase in density.
Obviously, the final release or even the beta releases will not consume this much of the system resources.
You don't think Microsoft can figure out 10 more things to implement in the next 2 years to consume any ram they happen to free up through optimization?
From the submission blurb: Furthermore, there is evidence in the record suggesting that a phone call from AOL subscriber John J. Miller to AOL should have put AOL on notice of the infringing activity on the particular USENET group at issue in this case, "alt.binaries.e-book."
Selling out on launch isn't impressive?
Okay, that's your opinion, fine. However, couple that with, "but given the fact that they've now sold out, Apple would have been stupid to set a lower price," and you're being somewhat silly.
A) Set a price at $250. Sell out
B) Set a price at $200. Sell out
Which one *logically* is more intelligent.
Apple chose A. *If* they need to lower the price, they have that choice. If they don't, they can keep the price high.
What you imply is Apple should have set B; and if they did that, they would have lost at least $5,000,000 in preorders as it were, not counting the sales channel!
Get the FireWire cable.
It's much cheaper than any other solution.
iChat AV, iMovie, and Final Cut all work wonderfully when you have it hooked up via Firewire.
Else none of those programs will work.
Dollar for dollar, a laptop *will* last exactly as long as a desktop.
The device is not obsoleted by the release of new hardware, the device is obsoleted by the needs and requirements of the user.
If you buy the PowerBook now for features X, Y, and Z, and are satisfied, then you should have no problems doing X, Y, and Z for the next N years as well. This carries just as well for the desktop as the laptop.
The difference is that a desktop is more flexible, in that you can upgrade and replace components to meet future needs; however, this is untrue in *this* situation because we are comparing to a G3 iMac and a G4 iMac, both of which cannot be upgraded like the conventional view of a desktop!
Here's my logic:
Happy with 800MHz G4
1.25GHz G4 will make him happy too
1.25GHz G4 will last him longer than an 800MHz G4
Happy with a 500MHz G3
Long life with a 500MHz G3
Longer life with a 1.25GHz G4
As per cost? That's up to the buyer, as to what he can and is willing to pay.
So you have a 500MHz G3, spent $1,100 on it, and it's lasted you 4 years.
You have an 800MHz G4 and you think the 1.25GHz PowerBook would be hands down better.
Why do you think $2,500 spent now won't last you for, oh, 5 years? Why do you think it would be obsolete in two months if your G3 isn't obsoleted by your G4?
Just because Apple releases a G5 doesn't make the G4 obsolete. The *only* reasonable argument I can come up with is if Apple releases the G5, then you can purchase a G4 PowerBook for even less!
There are plenty of 1.3 GHz P3 equiv Macs out there! (of course they aren't laptops... but on the other hand, the Mac laptops will have higher interconnects, so the bottleneck will probably be CPU over bandwidth)
Or are you talking about 256mb?
Are you talking about Linux?
Or are you talking about the fact that the organizers won't know what to do with Macs?
But enough for a vial of SARS infected urine~
Especially if you can rig the UAV itself to blow up, via short circuit and some other stuff.
Am I not being understood?
I never expected you to pay double for the imported (scalped? Why do you call it that? Are Ferrari's imported into the US scalped?) goods.
I think I mean that if you wouldn't buy the originals (scalped, as you put it) you shouldn't be buying the knockoffs. The concept of tit for tat exists, and if we/you/I can't be expected to live by some set of expected behaviors, we can't and shouldn't expect anyone else to either.
This means of course people downloading music they can't afford, with the logic that they can't afford it, but they *can* afford the downloaded version, people using pirated software for the same reason, or buying knockoff VCDs, or pirated DVDs... It's not like it's one way here. Our movies, games, and products are heavily pirated around the world too. But if you think that's okay, then that also justifies your behavior in buying knockoffs.
The question is what do you care what you do?
I guess you don't care... I do
I import the soundtracks because that's important to me. I like the music and games Square make, so I would like to see more, right?
Your way, if I followed it, they would have less incentive to do so... But that's my thought.
What, two wrongs make a right? Just because Square doesn't do something right means you don't have to do something right?
The issue is at least as much the purchasers as it is the producers in any transaction, isn't it?
Haha, I'm just joking.
I've bought a couple SonMay in my time, when I thought it was a good deal... but after I found out, I stopped buying.
Not because I'm rich, but because I think if I love something, I shouldn't be cheating them. So I buy my music legit, mostly. I have a few odd unbought tracks, but as I earn money I put my money where my mouth is ^^
Or rather, my ears
So you're saying... when Square was in debt... and had to go to Enix for help.. you were part of the problem? :P
Seriously though, if you really *love* the music, why aren't you giving any cash to Square?
They're already here! There's an AMD 486 inside my graphite Apple Airport Base Station : )
Of course I'm joking, but what the poster really wants to know... is *Windows* ready for consumer appliances?
I think not, myself ^^