It more or less holds true for the systems where you can use the old lenses on new cameras, such as Pentax and Nikon. If you want a manual focus system where the used lenses are cheaper, go for an "obsolete" mount like Canon FD or Minolta MC/MD. Though there has been some interest in these older lenses more recently as there are now digital cameras which can easily accept many old mounts like the Canon FD with a simple adaptor that maintains infinity focus.
As for me, I'm still looking for a reasonably priced used Pentax K-mount 24mm lens.
Not really, as with all the consoles you can buy games from companies other than the company that manufactured the console. Though I suppose you could argue that all those other companies did have the blessing of the console manufacturer, since you need a license from the manufacturer to produce a game for any of the consoles due to the builtin DRM.
The closest analogy I can think of is the iPod/iTunes model before everyone started going DRM-free.
Interesting idea, though it doesn't seem to hold for the tape generation, as I haven't really heard people complaining about how they miss the constant hissing sound, or how the music got distorted on a worn and stretched tape, or how the noise reduction removed the cymbals. Also, I wonder what's the CD generation supposed to cling to?
Yeah, but if you got a stack of 512MBs that you don't care about, you can give someone the drive and not worry about getting it back, much like we once did with floppy disks.
I will admit, my interest in the Atom is to replace an old P3 I leave on 24/7. It serves mostly as machine to manage..um.. downloads and seeding. It also serves as a light duty web server, a music player, and I use it to browse the internet with it when my other computers aren't on. I find it's not really CPU bound, even though it's "only" 1GHz, the biggest problem with it is that it's maxed out at 512MB of ram, which becomes a bit of a stretch when I have a torrent client open, a modern web browser, music player, Apache2, VNC, and some other stuff I'm probably forgetting at the moment. In my mind the Atom could be a good replacement for it, since it would be more powerful, smaller, less electricity usage, and most importantly allow for more ram. On the cheap, It could be a simply $100-110 upgrade if I wanted it to be, as the P3 is standard ATX so in theory I could simply remove the old system board and drop in the mini-ITX replacement & 2GB memory stick and continue on (yeah, I know it's NEVER that easy).
However, browsing Newegg I see that you're right. You can get a cheap, brand name motherboard plus either a low end AMD or Intel (non-Atom) processor for about the same price or slightly more which would be much more powerful, even if it's a single core chip. You also get things like DVI and >2GB of ram capacity too, which you are right about when it comes to many of these mini-ITX Atom systems (really, just VGA in 2009?). The Semprons in particular look the most attractive, as they seem to run relatively cool and their supporting chipsets are less power hungry.
Ultimately, I'll probably just wait. It's cheaper, the hardware only gets better, and it seems that no one really builds the perfect mainboard yet though there are lots that could work.
In their "best used car values", it is filled with Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, and fewer Nissans, Mazdas, BMW's, a few Fords. There is not a Kia on the list.
Bullshit. I have the 2009 Car issue righ here. Kia is in the $6000-$8000 range, with the Optima '06 and the Spectra '06. They make the $8000-$10000 list with the Rondo '07 and Spectra '07. I could go on. Honestly, I wouldn't expect a strong showing here, as I said Kia has really improved over the past few years, and their '09 line up is significantly better than their '04 lineup, which is in term is far better than their '99 line-up (which honestly I wouldn't touch). About the only other major automaker who can make a claim like that in my mind is Ford and their offshoots. Everyone else seems to be in a decline in quality, Toyota and Nissan in particular.
Further in terms of new cars that CR recommends, Kia doesn't make the list once. Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, Fords, and BMWs typically top that list. Do you know why? Because they're good cars.
Once again, bullshit. They recommend the Optima, Rondo, and Sportage.
Maybe next time try getting some basic, easy to verify facts right.
I disagree about the "Ads are designed to make you buy something". A lot of ads are designed to for what the industry calls "branding". In other words, when you think of an item, they want you to think of their product. Using your example of pickup trucks, you may not want now, or ever for that matter. But say you do decide you need one, I bet the first three things you'd think of would be "Ford", "Chevy", and "Dodge", which would be a direct result of all the advertising you've seen for those brands over the years. You'd probably be less likely to think "Mazda", "Nissan", or "Honda" even though they all make pickup trucks too (well, I'm assuming that Mazda still makes the B-series here). I'm not saying you'd be this way, but this association is so strong that many pickup truck buyers don't even consider anything other than the big three when it comes time to buy a truck. This is really their goal, as even marketers realize that you're unlikely to buy a truck just because they show you a thirty second clip of it driving around in the desert or something.
This form of advertising is actually very common, and companies spend a lot of money on it. Other examples include Coca-Cola (everyone knows what Coke is, the ads they run are primarly to keep the brand fresh in your mind), any other product/brand that everyone already knows about (McDonalds, Nike, Dell, Walmart, Playstation, iPod, countless others), and also all those obnoxious pill ads (you obviously aren't ever going to buy heartburn medicine if you don't have heartburn, but if you do start having problems with it, they want you to immediately think Nexium or whatever the brand they are pushing now is named). I would argue that a lot of that isn't very effective, or at least not cost effective in terms of what they spend on it (would Coke really lose multi-millions in sales if they slashed their multi-million dollar marketing budget? I doubt it), but you should still realize it's out there and how you can be affected by it.
Or, slip someone in the movie theater $100 so you can go up into the projector room and film it there... "Our watermarking technology has determined that the movie pirate is... the projector!"
I'm sure they would like to find something like that out. It would tell them little if they found that the movie was filmed from the 17th row back, 3rd seat right of the middle, but if they find that the theatre employees are in on it, they stand a much better chance of catching the people they are trying to nail.
I see a lot of automobile ads. Do they influence me? Yes, to the extent that seeing the vehicle on TV might get me into a dealership to have a look at it, but is my final decision made by TV? Not a chance - I need to evaluate the test drive, the deal, the warranty, operating costs, and, these days, whether the company is likely to survive or not. Ads have zero influence there.
The fact that they got you to go to the dealership to "have a look" means the ad worked on you. Remember, one of the goals of advertising to convice the consumer to buy something while maintaining the illusion that they choose to buy it of their own free will the entire time. Don't be so naive ao to assume that you are immune to it.
Typically, MTBF is calculated using what is considered normal levels of use, so you'll find the same thing for harddrives. Put a bunch of desktop drives in a situation where they are constantly being accessed 24/7 and you'll find the MTBF will be much shorter than the spec.
This also has the potential to turn the automobile, which is one of the few durable items left that people will have serviced and repaired, into another sealed disposable good that's intended to be scrapped and replaced whenever something goes wrong with it.
You might want to take another look at Kia, as they seem to be one of the few auto manufacturers nowadays who seem to be actually trying to improve their vehicles, and it shows. The quality of the Japanese vehicles have been on a slide the past few years as they ride out the reputation they gained in the 90's, the Americans are still playing their planned obsolence games, and I'm not sure what the Germans are up to but their vehicles of late have been overly complicated and have awful reliability.
I was just discussing the G3 iMac as another example of unusual/sub-optimal cooling solutions by Apple over the years. There is nothing wrong with using just convection to cool your computer components, provided you can get away with it. Using a 50-70W CRT to generate enough convection to keep your chip cool when most other computers can put the monitor to sleep is a little unorthodox and ineffecient, to say the least.
By the way, the typical P2 was about 20-25W, with the worst at about 40W for the first generation chips. The slot design was overkill, which is part of the reason why Intel dropped it and hasn't looked back.
Do you even know what you're talking about? In other to cool something using air, you have to have air flow. You can either get by using convection (aka heat rises), or generate the air flow using a fan. At least some of the old iMacs got away with just convection, using the heat generated by the CRT to generate the needed airflow. Your desktop probably used a fan to force air through the case and across the CPU heatsink, the same way most PC desktops work (though the PC likely also had an additional fan to remove the heat from the CPU heatsink, unless it was an OEM system with a specially designed case to allow for a large enough heatsink to eliminate the extra fan).
What about a NAS box? I'm considering building one using commodity PC parts, and when you can have a 4GB disk cache for $40, it's tempting. Though on the other hand, my desktops are kind of dated, and having a NAS box with twice or more ram of any computer it would be serving files to would be completely redicilious.
Well, there are the ones who hate it because they have a slower computer and the awesome bar freezes the browser for several seconds everytime they try to type something into it.
Most of the iMac G3's used convection to cool their CPU and thus were fanless. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3#Updates Sounds like you might have had one of them if yours had no fans, though I don't remember any biege ones (it's been a while, and I don't remember all the colors available nor which ones had cooling fans, sorry). It was kind of a shame that the harddrives of that era in the iMacs ruined the fanless aspect of them.
The base Mac Pro (the $2500 one) only has one CPU in it and no second socket, so the fact it's a Xeon doesn't even matter. Might as well compare it to the regular Core i7 because they are totally comparable in that configuration.
1. Damn them for keeping upgrades under wraps. I would have held off if I knew the new one was only two months away.
The key is to buy right after they do an update/refresh. In case you haven't noticed, Apple doesn't update their product line that often. It's also the best time to buy because that's when the hardware is the most competitive. The longer you wait after an update, the more and more expensive the Mac becomes when compared to a PC.
Well, I guess the "Windtunnel" G4s did do their job of cooling the compenents well. Of course, my favorite was the G3 iMacs that had to leave their CRTs on all the time (even when in power save mode) because they depended on convection from the screen to cool the CPU/harddrive.
I'm guessing that the problem is that since Apple's line up until the Mac Pro are all dual core machines, if you want more than a dual core you've got to buy the pricy Mac Pro. On the other hand, you can get a quad core PC quite cheap nowadays. So if someone decides they want at least 4 cores (or a decent video chipset, or expansion slots, or more than 1 internal harddrive, etc), they are going to take one look at Apple, go "WTF?", and go buy a PC. It really boils down to a lack of options in the Apple world.
Why would they need a Nehalem chip, and not a Core 2 Quad? There is the Q9550s, a 2.83Ghz chip at 65W, and then there are the mobile ones too which use less power. Of course, perhaps they could redesign the iMac to dissipate a bit more heat anyway, the current ones already run too hot.
Slashdot Mirror
It more or less holds true for the systems where you can use the old lenses on new cameras, such as Pentax and Nikon. If you want a manual focus system where the used lenses are cheaper, go for an "obsolete" mount like Canon FD or Minolta MC/MD. Though there has been some interest in these older lenses more recently as there are now digital cameras which can easily accept many old mounts like the Canon FD with a simple adaptor that maintains infinity focus.
As for me, I'm still looking for a reasonably priced used Pentax K-mount 24mm lens.
So in other words, you say you played as America?
Not really, as with all the consoles you can buy games from companies other than the company that manufactured the console. Though I suppose you could argue that all those other companies did have the blessing of the console manufacturer, since you need a license from the manufacturer to produce a game for any of the consoles due to the builtin DRM.
The closest analogy I can think of is the iPod/iTunes model before everyone started going DRM-free.
Interesting idea, though it doesn't seem to hold for the tape generation, as I haven't really heard people complaining about how they miss the constant hissing sound, or how the music got distorted on a worn and stretched tape, or how the noise reduction removed the cymbals. Also, I wonder what's the CD generation supposed to cling to?
Yeah, but if you got a stack of 512MBs that you don't care about, you can give someone the drive and not worry about getting it back, much like we once did with floppy disks.
I will admit, my interest in the Atom is to replace an old P3 I leave on 24/7. It serves mostly as machine to manage ..um.. downloads and seeding. It also serves as a light duty web server, a music player, and I use it to browse the internet with it when my other computers aren't on. I find it's not really CPU bound, even though it's "only" 1GHz, the biggest problem with it is that it's maxed out at 512MB of ram, which becomes a bit of a stretch when I have a torrent client open, a modern web browser, music player, Apache2, VNC, and some other stuff I'm probably forgetting at the moment. In my mind the Atom could be a good replacement for it, since it would be more powerful, smaller, less electricity usage, and most importantly allow for more ram. On the cheap, It could be a simply $100-110 upgrade if I wanted it to be, as the P3 is standard ATX so in theory I could simply remove the old system board and drop in the mini-ITX replacement & 2GB memory stick and continue on (yeah, I know it's NEVER that easy).
However, browsing Newegg I see that you're right. You can get a cheap, brand name motherboard plus either a low end AMD or Intel (non-Atom) processor for about the same price or slightly more which would be much more powerful, even if it's a single core chip. You also get things like DVI and >2GB of ram capacity too, which you are right about when it comes to many of these mini-ITX Atom systems (really, just VGA in 2009?). The Semprons in particular look the most attractive, as they seem to run relatively cool and their supporting chipsets are less power hungry.
Ultimately, I'll probably just wait. It's cheaper, the hardware only gets better, and it seems that no one really builds the perfect mainboard yet though there are lots that could work.
Bullshit. I have the 2009 Car issue righ here. Kia is in the $6000-$8000 range, with the Optima '06 and the Spectra '06. They make the $8000-$10000 list with the Rondo '07 and Spectra '07. I could go on. Honestly, I wouldn't expect a strong showing here, as I said Kia has really improved over the past few years, and their '09 line up is significantly better than their '04 lineup, which is in term is far better than their '99 line-up (which honestly I wouldn't touch). About the only other major automaker who can make a claim like that in my mind is Ford and their offshoots. Everyone else seems to be in a decline in quality, Toyota and Nissan in particular.
Once again, bullshit. They recommend the Optima, Rondo, and Sportage.
Maybe next time try getting some basic, easy to verify facts right.
And that's downright cheap when it comes to government spending!
I disagree about the "Ads are designed to make you buy something". A lot of ads are designed to for what the industry calls "branding". In other words, when you think of an item, they want you to think of their product. Using your example of pickup trucks, you may not want now, or ever for that matter. But say you do decide you need one, I bet the first three things you'd think of would be "Ford", "Chevy", and "Dodge", which would be a direct result of all the advertising you've seen for those brands over the years. You'd probably be less likely to think "Mazda", "Nissan", or "Honda" even though they all make pickup trucks too (well, I'm assuming that Mazda still makes the B-series here). I'm not saying you'd be this way, but this association is so strong that many pickup truck buyers don't even consider anything other than the big three when it comes time to buy a truck. This is really their goal, as even marketers realize that you're unlikely to buy a truck just because they show you a thirty second clip of it driving around in the desert or something.
This form of advertising is actually very common, and companies spend a lot of money on it. Other examples include Coca-Cola (everyone knows what Coke is, the ads they run are primarly to keep the brand fresh in your mind), any other product/brand that everyone already knows about (McDonalds, Nike, Dell, Walmart, Playstation, iPod, countless others), and also all those obnoxious pill ads (you obviously aren't ever going to buy heartburn medicine if you don't have heartburn, but if you do start having problems with it, they want you to immediately think Nexium or whatever the brand they are pushing now is named). I would argue that a lot of that isn't very effective, or at least not cost effective in terms of what they spend on it (would Coke really lose multi-millions in sales if they slashed their multi-million dollar marketing budget? I doubt it), but you should still realize it's out there and how you can be affected by it.
I'm sure they would like to find something like that out. It would tell them little if they found that the movie was filmed from the 17th row back, 3rd seat right of the middle, but if they find that the theatre employees are in on it, they stand a much better chance of catching the people they are trying to nail.
The fact that they got you to go to the dealership to "have a look" means the ad worked on you. Remember, one of the goals of advertising to convice the consumer to buy something while maintaining the illusion that they choose to buy it of their own free will the entire time. Don't be so naive ao to assume that you are immune to it.
Nope. Not even an Apple can save you from Symantec.
Typically, MTBF is calculated using what is considered normal levels of use, so you'll find the same thing for harddrives. Put a bunch of desktop drives in a situation where they are constantly being accessed 24/7 and you'll find the MTBF will be much shorter than the spec.
This also has the potential to turn the automobile, which is one of the few durable items left that people will have serviced and repaired, into another sealed disposable good that's intended to be scrapped and replaced whenever something goes wrong with it.
You might want to take another look at Kia, as they seem to be one of the few auto manufacturers nowadays who seem to be actually trying to improve their vehicles, and it shows. The quality of the Japanese vehicles have been on a slide the past few years as they ride out the reputation they gained in the 90's, the Americans are still playing their planned obsolence games, and I'm not sure what the Germans are up to but their vehicles of late have been overly complicated and have awful reliability.
I was just discussing the G3 iMac as another example of unusual/sub-optimal cooling solutions by Apple over the years. There is nothing wrong with using just convection to cool your computer components, provided you can get away with it. Using a 50-70W CRT to generate enough convection to keep your chip cool when most other computers can put the monitor to sleep is a little unorthodox and ineffecient, to say the least.
By the way, the typical P2 was about 20-25W, with the worst at about 40W for the first generation chips. The slot design was overkill, which is part of the reason why Intel dropped it and hasn't looked back.
Do you even know what you're talking about? In other to cool something using air, you have to have air flow. You can either get by using convection (aka heat rises), or generate the air flow using a fan. At least some of the old iMacs got away with just convection, using the heat generated by the CRT to generate the needed airflow. Your desktop probably used a fan to force air through the case and across the CPU heatsink, the same way most PC desktops work (though the PC likely also had an additional fan to remove the heat from the CPU heatsink, unless it was an OEM system with a specially designed case to allow for a large enough heatsink to eliminate the extra fan).
What about a NAS box? I'm considering building one using commodity PC parts, and when you can have a 4GB disk cache for $40, it's tempting. Though on the other hand, my desktops are kind of dated, and having a NAS box with twice or more ram of any computer it would be serving files to would be completely redicilious.
Well, there are the ones who hate it because they have a slower computer and the awesome bar freezes the browser for several seconds everytime they try to type something into it.
Most of the iMac G3's used convection to cool their CPU and thus were fanless. It's mentioned in the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3#Updates
Sounds like you might have had one of them if yours had no fans, though I don't remember any biege ones (it's been a while, and I don't remember all the colors available nor which ones had cooling fans, sorry). It was kind of a shame that the harddrives of that era in the iMacs ruined the fanless aspect of them.
The base Mac Pro (the $2500 one) only has one CPU in it and no second socket, so the fact it's a Xeon doesn't even matter. Might as well compare it to the regular Core i7 because they are totally comparable in that configuration.
The key is to buy right after they do an update/refresh. In case you haven't noticed, Apple doesn't update their product line that often. It's also the best time to buy because that's when the hardware is the most competitive. The longer you wait after an update, the more and more expensive the Mac becomes when compared to a PC.
Well, I guess the "Windtunnel" G4s did do their job of cooling the compenents well. Of course, my favorite was the G3 iMacs that had to leave their CRTs on all the time (even when in power save mode) because they depended on convection from the screen to cool the CPU/harddrive.
I'm guessing that the problem is that since Apple's line up until the Mac Pro are all dual core machines, if you want more than a dual core you've got to buy the pricy Mac Pro. On the other hand, you can get a quad core PC quite cheap nowadays. So if someone decides they want at least 4 cores (or a decent video chipset, or expansion slots, or more than 1 internal harddrive, etc), they are going to take one look at Apple, go "WTF?", and go buy a PC. It really boils down to a lack of options in the Apple world.
Why would they need a Nehalem chip, and not a Core 2 Quad? There is the Q9550s, a 2.83Ghz chip at 65W, and then there are the mobile ones too which use less power. Of course, perhaps they could redesign the iMac to dissipate a bit more heat anyway, the current ones already run too hot.