Blame ATI and NVIDIA for that - there's no reason their new cutting edge cards can't be used in the Mac Pros (of each generation, since the MP used PCI-X, PCI-E etc - the same as PC motherboards of the appropriate technology level) but the on-card firmwares are different.
Perhaps Apple should push them a bit more for Mac specific firmwares for their new cards, but I imagine it's a small market segment for both Apple and the GPU makers - Mac users who upgrade their cards rather than buy new boxes.
We had a couple of early Powermac G5's that were stuck with their graphics cards too - we had the 11th PMG5 to ship to the UK in fact - even expandable GPUs have always been problematic (unlike fitting new HD's, RAM etc which was easy).
No 24" iMac ever had a "crappy portable MXM video" card. The very first 24" iMac had a NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT, and all subsequent 24" iMacs had an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO.
No "portable video" anywhere. While some iMacs did have mobile GPUs, they were all the base models. None of the 24" versions had the option, unless your friend somehow specified a less powerful mobile GPU as a BTO option to save money.
From the sounds of it, he may have done just that, since your description of his rage at Apple because he did no research about his large purchase really smacks of that.
If you want a cutting edge gaming rig, an iMac is not it, nor will it ever be. Did he buy a minivan and expect to use it (unmodified) for track days?
This is not political - if you are a news outlet, you report facts, you don't create the stories. I have as much contempt for a "liberal" news outlet doing that as fox news.
If you look at the overall picture though, Fox is very good at those sorts of distortions.
I'm not saying that *everything* they broadcast is untrue, just a demonstrably sizeable portion compared to other news organisations (even right wing ones).
They are also the champions of promoting editorial pieces as actual factual news, rather than opinions. Not that other news outlets don't run editorials... but you get the picture.
Fox News isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.
There are plenty of right wing news organisations that are critical of the Obama administration and the left in general that haven't been classified as "not news".
Faux News is a special case.
The BBC is a good example of a "state funded" news outlet. Not beholden to advertising, and managed by a trust (not the government) while drawing funding from the licence fee. I don't think it's any surprise to most people that in general opinion BBC news is considered to be high quality. You will get people from both sides of the spectrum claiming it is biased either too heavily left, or too heavily conservative but the fact that it is often accused of being both a left wing and right wing propaganda machine seems to indicate it might actually be doing ok.
If you think that a state funded news organisation could never criticise the money source then just check out the sexing up of the Iraq dossier and subsequent aftermath - a subject the BBC got themselves into hot water over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry While ultimately it resulted in the resignation of the director general, the BBC pursued the story in the face of major government displeasure.
I as going for the "perceived wisdom angle" of the GP who thought the entire program was worthless, when we already "knew" that it was a lifeless, water-less rock.
The car you are driving (that you "cannot afford to register") will have directly benefited from the space programme's work into composites and computing. The computer you are using to type your ill-informed comments will also owe a lot to the space programme.
Are you suggesting that no one pays any tax? Or that any tax that is collected is used solely to reduce the deficit? If you do that and cut all the spending that benefits humanity (and that creates jobs by the way - you don;t think the guys at NASA work for free do you?).
NASA really is a miniscule, tiny, microscopic drop in the spending bucket of the US, and cutting it out completely severely affects the future benefits we receive as a race.
What exactly do you think scientific research is ultimately for, if not to improve our lives? Do you think we would have the quality of life that we currently do (unregistered car aside) without it? If only private companies do research, what do you think will happen to "large" projects like the LHC, or the moon missions, or the ISS and the benefits from those? What do you think will happen to the cost of technologies that come out of solely private labs?
"endless resources" to NASA. ahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Even with the very tiny amount of money the US spends on its space program (compared to something like military spending or social security) the human race as a whole has benefited significantly from the things we have learned while doing it. Not just that the moon is grey and barren, or that ants still make anthills in zero gravity, but new materials, new ways to do old things, new computing, new understanding about the universe, a better understanding of the sun and outer planets and greater understanding of the building blocks of the earth itself.
It wasn't just some wasted hole that they poured money into to piss off the Russians.
Space exploration and the whole area around how to actually explore space needs much more funding than it currently has.
If not, then Apple is up $79 for the retail copy of OS X. Unless you're using music industry economics, where any retail copy of OS X is lost sale of a Macbook.
If you would never have bought a Mac in the first place because you think it's too expensive then Apple haven't lost anything.
My original post should have mentioned that only the voltage is a fixed requirement, as long as the minimum current is 500mA per port.
The USB spec defines that minimum current, just as defines a fixed 5V. The problem with such a small voltage is that you really extract a lot of energy, you have to ramp the current up if you want to power more thirsty devices.
It shouldn't affect mobile phones, but a laptop needs a little more juice - 5V at 2 amps isn't really going to cut it, 5 V at 5 amps might, but then your cabling has to be able to deal with the higher current - it's much easier to just up the voltage a little and keep the current low.
As long as it is only 5V - continuing the rack mount analogy, greater current from the port is fine, that's like building the rack from a stronger material, but making the rack 19.5" wide so you can fit custom shock absorbers or some other reason breaks the spec irrevocably, requiring spacers for all standard 19" equipment now, or a potential divider between your PSU and device expecting 5V.
But *voltage* is important. I know that a device will only draw as much current as it needs, even if the PSU can deliver more, but if the device is expecting 5V across the pins and in reality it is 9V or 12V, then it has the potential to damage the device.
I don't think you understand electronics, you MUPPET, current is irrelevant (as long as the PSU can satisfy the demand of the device, ie available I > load I), if the voltage is wrong.
Try putting 48V into a system designed for 12V and see what happens, or connect a non-switching PSU set up for 120VAC into a socket that provides 230VAC.
Voltage matters. That will have to be a potential difference between us, Mr AC. Ha.
But if it's a USB connector on the end, it will have to abide by that standard, since the spec says "maximum 5V, 500mA" and this universal connector can then be hooked up to your other device, that is not expecting a non standard voltage across those pins and dies when you plug it in.
The whole point about it being standard is that you can absolutely rely on the specification when you make a product that fits with it - wether that be the width of a rack mount unit, the voltage across 2 pins in a connector, or the diameter of the tyres for your car.
If they're going to use the microUSB connector and then just supply any old voltage and current that they want, then we're worse off than before!
Except that third party mp3 players *do* show up and work in iTunes if you use the methods laid out by Apple.
There's no obstruction here. All Apple did that was "obstructionist" was to insist that devices that report Apple's unique, paid for, in-spec USB Vendor ID are actually made by Apple.
If by "nearly impossible" you mean checking the radio button that says "no thanks, I don't want to try.mac now" then I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.
So an iPod/iTunes lock-in is not ok by you, yet DRM'ed WMAs that you rent on a monthly basis is?
Interesting that your beef with iTunes and the iPod is based around that (there are other issues with it besides that) when you essentially rent music that could be cut off from you at the whim of the people running the service.
In what way are manufacturers "prevented from making themselves compatible" with what people already have?
Hint: Apple tightening up authentication of USB Vendor ID is not "preventing making Palm compatible" - there are many third party players that sync with iTunes without resorting to deliberately breaking the USB spec, assuming that was the thing you were hinting at there.
iTunes also isn't the only jukebox/mp3 player management software. Plus, a manufacturer could just roll their own and bundle it with their player... kind of like iTunes with the iPod.
And this carbon-copy scare story from the media doesn't really reflect living with the NHS every day, which I do, and have done for the whole of my life.
For every crappy "go off and die" NHS story you can cite, I'll give you an American who simply cannot afford to even go to the hospital in the first place, or who could once (even with insurance!) but is now bankrupt because they got sick.
Or an American who is tied to their job because they simply cannot afford to risk losing their coverage, which is provided through their employer and would not be able to afford a self-funded plan.
The NHS needs more funding, you won;t hear me arguing about that (20 years of neglect under a Tory government will set some serious rot in that the current Labour government has been unable to shift) but I will take the NHS over the American system any day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame ATI and NVIDIA for that - there's no reason their new cutting edge cards can't be used in the Mac Pros (of each generation, since the MP used PCI-X, PCI-E etc - the same as PC motherboards of the appropriate technology level) but the on-card firmwares are different.
Perhaps Apple should push them a bit more for Mac specific firmwares for their new cards, but I imagine it's a small market segment for both Apple and the GPU makers - Mac users who upgrade their cards rather than buy new boxes.
We had a couple of early Powermac G5's that were stuck with their graphics cards too - we had the 11th PMG5 to ship to the UK in fact - even expandable GPUs have always been problematic (unlike fitting new HD's, RAM etc which was easy).
No 24" iMac ever had a "crappy portable MXM video" card. The very first 24" iMac had a NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT, and all subsequent 24" iMacs had an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO.
No "portable video" anywhere. While some iMacs did have mobile GPUs, they were all the base models. None of the 24" versions had the option, unless your friend somehow specified a less powerful mobile GPU as a BTO option to save money.
From the sounds of it, he may have done just that, since your description of his rage at Apple because he did no research about his large purchase really smacks of that.
If you want a cutting edge gaming rig, an iMac is not it, nor will it ever be. Did he buy a minivan and expect to use it (unmodified) for track days?
The original Apple computer.
Hey. you're AC, so I'll be blunt and just stop at one.
In which case, I hold NBC to the same standard.
This is not political - if you are a news outlet, you report facts, you don't create the stories. I have as much contempt for a "liberal" news outlet doing that as fox news.
If you look at the overall picture though, Fox is very good at those sorts of distortions.
I'm not saying that *everything* they broadcast is untrue, just a demonstrably sizeable portion compared to other news organisations (even right wing ones).
They are also the champions of promoting editorial pieces as actual factual news, rather than opinions. Not that other news outlets don't run editorials... but you get the picture.
Fox News isn't a real news organisation not because it is right wing, but because it doesn't really care about actual truth, it just broadcasts whatever it likes regardless of the facts.
There are plenty of right wing news organisations that are critical of the Obama administration and the left in general that haven't been classified as "not news".
Faux News is a special case.
The BBC is a good example of a "state funded" news outlet. Not beholden to advertising, and managed by a trust (not the government) while drawing funding from the licence fee. I don't think it's any surprise to most people that in general opinion BBC news is considered to be high quality. You will get people from both sides of the spectrum claiming it is biased either too heavily left, or too heavily conservative but the fact that it is often accused of being both a left wing and right wing propaganda machine seems to indicate it might actually be doing ok.
If you think that a state funded news organisation could never criticise the money source then just check out the sexing up of the Iraq dossier and subsequent aftermath - a subject the BBC got themselves into hot water over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry While ultimately it resulted in the resignation of the director general, the BBC pursued the story in the face of major government displeasure.
I as going for the "perceived wisdom angle" of the GP who thought the entire program was worthless, when we already "knew" that it was a lifeless, water-less rock.
Go live on a rock then, without any technology.
The car you are driving (that you "cannot afford to register") will have directly benefited from the space programme's work into composites and computing. The computer you are using to type your ill-informed comments will also owe a lot to the space programme.
Are you suggesting that no one pays any tax? Or that any tax that is collected is used solely to reduce the deficit? If you do that and cut all the spending that benefits humanity (and that creates jobs by the way - you don;t think the guys at NASA work for free do you?).
NASA really is a miniscule, tiny, microscopic drop in the spending bucket of the US, and cutting it out completely severely affects the future benefits we receive as a race.
What exactly do you think scientific research is ultimately for, if not to improve our lives? Do you think we would have the quality of life that we currently do (unregistered car aside) without it? If only private companies do research, what do you think will happen to "large" projects like the LHC, or the moon missions, or the ISS and the benefits from those? What do you think will happen to the cost of technologies that come out of solely private labs?
"endless resources" to NASA. ahahahahahahahahaha. Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Even with the very tiny amount of money the US spends on its space program (compared to something like military spending or social security) the human race as a whole has benefited significantly from the things we have learned while doing it. Not just that the moon is grey and barren, or that ants still make anthills in zero gravity, but new materials, new ways to do old things, new computing, new understanding about the universe, a better understanding of the sun and outer planets and greater understanding of the building blocks of the earth itself.
It wasn't just some wasted hole that they poured money into to piss off the Russians.
Space exploration and the whole area around how to actually explore space needs much more funding than it currently has.
Would you have bought the Mac in the first place?
If not, then Apple is up $79 for the retail copy of OS X. Unless you're using music industry economics, where any retail copy of OS X is lost sale of a Macbook.
If you would never have bought a Mac in the first place because you think it's too expensive then Apple haven't lost anything.
Forget the OS - do you reckon he designs and fabricates his own CPUs?
The eye candy more than makes up for the requirement to have a ton of anti-malware, anti-virus and so on running.
Those are the only real "useful features" that Mac OS is missing compared to other OSes.
My original post should have mentioned that only the voltage is a fixed requirement, as long as the minimum current is 500mA per port.
The USB spec defines that minimum current, just as defines a fixed 5V. The problem with such a small voltage is that you really extract a lot of energy, you have to ramp the current up if you want to power more thirsty devices.
It shouldn't affect mobile phones, but a laptop needs a little more juice - 5V at 2 amps isn't really going to cut it, 5 V at 5 amps might, but then your cabling has to be able to deal with the higher current - it's much easier to just up the voltage a little and keep the current low.
As long as it is only 5V - continuing the rack mount analogy, greater current from the port is fine, that's like building the rack from a stronger material, but making the rack 19.5" wide so you can fit custom shock absorbers or some other reason breaks the spec irrevocably, requiring spacers for all standard 19" equipment now, or a potential divider between your PSU and device expecting 5V.
But *voltage* is important. I know that a device will only draw as much current as it needs, even if the PSU can deliver more, but if the device is expecting 5V across the pins and in reality it is 9V or 12V, then it has the potential to damage the device.
I don't think you understand electronics, you MUPPET, current is irrelevant (as long as the PSU can satisfy the demand of the device, ie available I > load I), if the voltage is wrong.
Try putting 48V into a system designed for 12V and see what happens, or connect a non-switching PSU set up for 120VAC into a socket that provides 230VAC.
Voltage matters. That will have to be a potential difference between us, Mr AC. Ha.
But if it's a USB connector on the end, it will have to abide by that standard, since the spec says "maximum 5V, 500mA" and this universal connector can then be hooked up to your other device, that is not expecting a non standard voltage across those pins and dies when you plug it in.
The whole point about it being standard is that you can absolutely rely on the specification when you make a product that fits with it - wether that be the width of a rack mount unit, the voltage across 2 pins in a connector, or the diameter of the tyres for your car.
If they're going to use the microUSB connector and then just supply any old voltage and current that they want, then we're worse off than before!
Except that third party mp3 players *do* show up and work in iTunes if you use the methods laid out by Apple.
There's no obstruction here. All Apple did that was "obstructionist" was to insist that devices that report Apple's unique, paid for, in-spec USB Vendor ID are actually made by Apple.
It's not, but since when is the world entirely black and white?
Just look at Michael Jackson.
If by "nearly impossible" you mean checking the radio button that says "no thanks, I don't want to try .mac now" then I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.
So an iPod/iTunes lock-in is not ok by you, yet DRM'ed WMAs that you rent on a monthly basis is?
Interesting that your beef with iTunes and the iPod is based around that (there are other issues with it besides that) when you essentially rent music that could be cut off from you at the whim of the people running the service.
In what way are manufacturers "prevented from making themselves compatible" with what people already have?
Hint: Apple tightening up authentication of USB Vendor ID is not "preventing making Palm compatible" - there are many third party players that sync with iTunes without resorting to deliberately breaking the USB spec, assuming that was the thing you were hinting at there.
iTunes also isn't the only jukebox/mp3 player management software. Plus, a manufacturer could just roll their own and bundle it with their player... kind of like iTunes with the iPod.
So don't buy an iPod.
There are plenty of other music players out there.
And this carbon-copy scare story from the media doesn't really reflect living with the NHS every day, which I do, and have done for the whole of my life.
For every crappy "go off and die" NHS story you can cite, I'll give you an American who simply cannot afford to even go to the hospital in the first place, or who could once (even with insurance!) but is now bankrupt because they got sick.
Or an American who is tied to their job because they simply cannot afford to risk losing their coverage, which is provided through their employer and would not be able to afford a self-funded plan.
The NHS needs more funding, you won;t hear me arguing about that (20 years of neglect under a Tory government will set some serious rot in that the current Labour government has been unable to shift) but I will take the NHS over the American system any day of the week.
Well, I live in the UK, am British, and owe my life to the lifesaving care of the "medical system I can afford" where I was "lucky to get care".
Fuck price controls - go universal/private hybrid.
Works for me.
Anything except make healthcare affordable.