I've been considering buying another Dell 2005FPW, and on my desk I *do* have room for two of those, but not for one of these, because my space is vertically limited but not horizontally. So I guess it's back to the old "having options is good" conclusion.
Are you saying that Intel chips are succeptible to viruses? Or are you saying that computers which have an Intel CPU need to be replaced more frequently? Neither of those are the case, so I don't understand where the shame comes in...
I just read the summary, not the articl, but it immediately reminds me of CPU Bach on 3DO. I wasn't a big Bach fan, and still prefer others, but it was pretty fascinating to see how it would compose classical music while explaining what it was doing and how the different parts were supposed to work.
I put all my usual icons in the Quicklaunch bar along with my Network Control Panel. (Please oh please, Microsoft, bless us with Network Profiles like Mac OS has...) That quicklaunch bar is one of the most useful features (and I always disable the Desktop Cleanup Wizard so that when I re-ghost my system after 60 days it doesn't whine and bitch at me.) I hope somebody comes up with a launcher like Quicksilver or Launchbar for Windows really really soon.
You know, after some further thought I came back to my original conclusion, which is pretty much what yousaid: Intel PPC chips. It makes perfect sense that Intel's huge fab capacity could pump out some PPC chips for Apple since IBM is lagging hardcore and making Steve Jobs look bad all the while. I'm betting that it's Intel PPC. I was working in the fab at LSI when Intel was ramping up their fabs in Oregon and Japan... Wow, when I compared LSI's to Intel's it was just a joke.
Slick desk, for sure, but why is it that whenever I see a screenshot of XP it has like 54 icons on the desktop? I'd be so much happier to see a really slick screensaver, a tastefull linux desktop, or even an XP desktop with less than 54 icons on it...
Good idea. I personally think they should've gone with a more Metroid Prime robot style, so that it could just roll like a ball, then when it got stuck it could unwind itself and start walking and hopping around. That'd be pretty entertaining as a battlebot too.
At least the P3 had a hardware bit rotate function. My dnetc-rc5 scores when to shit when I got a P4, which emulates the function over 4 clock cycles. Coincidentally my scores went through the roof when I got a G4 which does 4 bit rotates per clock cycle.
If they had not declined then that would've been conclusive. Instead, we have to assume by their silence that somebody has found them out. The same way that little Billy responds when his mother calls him, except when he's in the middle of stealing cookies from the jar when he shouldn't have even been in the kitchen.
Yesterday when I woke up there was a rabbit sitting next to a blonde girl laying in the bed in my spare bedroom... shit has never been more weird. I'm going to keep an eye on the sky for unusual hue mid-day changes and to look for aerobatic oinkers.
I was thinking the same thing last week, wondering if they could possibly get Intel to just make their PPC chips. As far as continuity goes with OS X that would be more logical. However, there were rumors way back that Apple had OS X running on x86b back to 10.2, I heard. It's conceivable that they've been keeping up on x86 specifically for this reason, and that there won't even be a performance hit when switching to x86 because they've secretly been keeping it in step.
I'd thought of this too and I think it's feasible for sure. The problem is that one of the best things about OS X is that it's very very stable. Hacking support for other hardware is going to compromise that stability in the process, albeit only on the other hardware. I can see it looking bad for Apple if too many people try that, I can see it being bad for Apple of too many people succeed, but man, I can see it being so awesome to run OS X on any commodity x86 computer...:)
It sounds to me like 6% of the DNA they analyzed was cave-bear DNA, and the rest was other DNA. That's not to be confused with 6% of a single DNA strand was cave bear, but 6% of the total number of samples.
Why limit your options? There is software that runs on one and not the other, or runs so much better on one than the other, but if you own both you can't complain.
And if we're keeping score, I too use my Mac most of the time.
I love OS X, but there are some definite rough edges in Tiger, and unfortunately those are Spotlight and Dashboard, the two most anticipated features, or at least in my mind. Dashboard takes sometimes up to 15 seconds to come up and fill in the info on my 12" 867 with 640mb memory. Subsequent cycles through F12 work a lot faster though, unless I do a bunch of other work and let it sit for a while, so I think this is a memory issue. Spotlight also has some memory issues. I moved about 23,000 files from my laptop to another computer and it was *amazing* how much faster it ran. I can only attribute the speed increase to spotlight not having to hold info about those extra 23,000 files. All in all though, I still think OS X is much better than XP. (Digression: I'm interested to see what Longhorn has to offer, but I'm not holding my breath, especially since even if it smoked OS X in eyecandy it still wouldn't be *nix.)
That's what it's all about for me. Immersion. I had a similar setup with a 1680x1050 resolution and it was *amazing* playing HL2 with full-world reflections, even on a $200 geforce 6600. Console games will not have a competitive graphics resolution until everybody has an HDTV, and we all know that's not happening any time soon. It's no contest that you are going to be more immersed playing a game on a computer instead of on a conosle on a TV which has a display area of 19% of what's possible on a computer (in my setup) and a max frame-rate of 1/2 the absolute lowest possible refresh rate of any VGA CRT. When resolution is factored in and when HDTV's are factored in, computer gaming is still cheaper as well as higher quality.
Slashdot Mirror
What sayeth you about a Mac tablet?
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
I've been considering buying another Dell 2005FPW, and on my desk I *do* have room for two of those, but not for one of these, because my space is vertically limited but not horizontally. So I guess it's back to the old "having options is good" conclusion.
Are you saying that Intel chips are succeptible to viruses? Or are you saying that computers which have an Intel CPU need to be replaced more frequently? Neither of those are the case, so I don't understand where the shame comes in...
I just read the summary, not the articl, but it immediately reminds me of CPU Bach on 3DO. I wasn't a big Bach fan, and still prefer others, but it was pretty fascinating to see how it would compose classical music while explaining what it was doing and how the different parts were supposed to work.
I put all my usual icons in the Quicklaunch bar along with my Network Control Panel. (Please oh please, Microsoft, bless us with Network Profiles like Mac OS has...) That quicklaunch bar is one of the most useful features (and I always disable the Desktop Cleanup Wizard so that when I re-ghost my system after 60 days it doesn't whine and bitch at me.) I hope somebody comes up with a launcher like Quicksilver or Launchbar for Windows really really soon.
You know, after some further thought I came back to my original conclusion, which is pretty much what yousaid: Intel PPC chips. It makes perfect sense that Intel's huge fab capacity could pump out some PPC chips for Apple since IBM is lagging hardcore and making Steve Jobs look bad all the while. I'm betting that it's Intel PPC. I was working in the fab at LSI when Intel was ramping up their fabs in Oregon and Japan... Wow, when I compared LSI's to Intel's it was just a joke.
Slick desk, for sure, but why is it that whenever I see a screenshot of XP it has like 54 icons on the desktop? I'd be so much happier to see a really slick screensaver, a tastefull linux desktop, or even an XP desktop with less than 54 icons on it...
You're not a real redneck! A real redneck would've said "YEE HAW!!" Now go on and git!
Good idea. I personally think they should've gone with a more Metroid Prime robot style, so that it could just roll like a ball, then when it got stuck it could unwind itself and start walking and hopping around. That'd be pretty entertaining as a battlebot too.
At least the P3 had a hardware bit rotate function. My dnetc-rc5 scores when to shit when I got a P4, which emulates the function over 4 clock cycles. Coincidentally my scores went through the roof when I got a G4 which does 4 bit rotates per clock cycle.
That is some funny shit. :) Wish I had some mod points.. and... that I hadn't posted like a dozen comments in this thread.
Cell has ties to IBM, so if Apple really is that mad at IBM then switching to Cell wouldn't be getting their point across.
If they had not declined then that would've been conclusive. Instead, we have to assume by their silence that somebody has found them out. The same way that little Billy responds when his mother calls him, except when he's in the middle of stealing cookies from the jar when he shouldn't have even been in the kitchen.
Yesterday when I woke up there was a rabbit sitting next to a blonde girl laying in the bed in my spare bedroom... shit has never been more weird. I'm going to keep an eye on the sky for unusual hue mid-day changes and to look for aerobatic oinkers.
Sue the hackers who get OS X to run on commodity x86 hardware.
The OS, of course. ;-)
Seriously though, I'd run OS X anything before choosing XP... except for gaming.
I was thinking the same thing last week, wondering if they could possibly get Intel to just make their PPC chips. As far as continuity goes with OS X that would be more logical. However, there were rumors way back that Apple had OS X running on x86b back to 10.2, I heard. It's conceivable that they've been keeping up on x86 specifically for this reason, and that there won't even be a performance hit when switching to x86 because they've secretly been keeping it in step.
I'd thought of this too and I think it's feasible for sure. The problem is that one of the best things about OS X is that it's very very stable. Hacking support for other hardware is going to compromise that stability in the process, albeit only on the other hardware. I can see it looking bad for Apple if too many people try that, I can see it being bad for Apple of too many people succeed, but man, I can see it being so awesome to run OS X on any commodity x86 computer... :)
Oh man, this could be bad. What if that was Satan Pooh and now he's coming back to harvest our mortal souls?
It sounds to me like 6% of the DNA they analyzed was cave-bear DNA, and the rest was other DNA. That's not to be confused with 6% of a single DNA strand was cave bear, but 6% of the total number of samples.
Why limit your options? There is software that runs on one and not the other, or runs so much better on one than the other, but if you own both you can't complain.
And if we're keeping score, I too use my Mac most of the time.
I love OS X, but there are some definite rough edges in Tiger, and unfortunately those are Spotlight and Dashboard, the two most anticipated features, or at least in my mind. Dashboard takes sometimes up to 15 seconds to come up and fill in the info on my 12" 867 with 640mb memory. Subsequent cycles through F12 work a lot faster though, unless I do a bunch of other work and let it sit for a while, so I think this is a memory issue. Spotlight also has some memory issues. I moved about 23,000 files from my laptop to another computer and it was *amazing* how much faster it ran. I can only attribute the speed increase to spotlight not having to hold info about those extra 23,000 files. All in all though, I still think OS X is much better than XP. (Digression: I'm interested to see what Longhorn has to offer, but I'm not holding my breath, especially since even if it smoked OS X in eyecandy it still wouldn't be *nix.)
Download AIM for Linux
That's what it's all about for me. Immersion. I had a similar setup with a 1680x1050 resolution and it was *amazing* playing HL2 with full-world reflections, even on a $200 geforce 6600. Console games will not have a competitive graphics resolution until everybody has an HDTV, and we all know that's not happening any time soon. It's no contest that you are going to be more immersed playing a game on a computer instead of on a conosle on a TV which has a display area of 19% of what's possible on a computer (in my setup) and a max frame-rate of 1/2 the absolute lowest possible refresh rate of any VGA CRT. When resolution is factored in and when HDTV's are factored in, computer gaming is still cheaper as well as higher quality.