Um, no. I download music because I can't afford CDs. I'm not costing anyone anything. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of running this extortion racket is actually greater than the loss of profit due to file sharing. (Anyone have a study to confirm/contradict this claim?)
"Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained."
"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."
That sounds perfectly in-line with today's Intel announcement.
They're not the same mechanically. You'd have to be a moron to say so. But they might use alot of the same parts. I assumed that is what the parent meant, maybe I gave hime too much credit.
But the Lexus will still ride better and be much more comfortable. Why? It's in the details, and that's where Apple excels over most other computer makers, they get the details right.
I thought that 256MB of RAM was ridiculous when Apple launched the Mini, but then I used one at Best Buy and was very surprised at how well it could run multiple iApps without a noticeable slowdown. Of course the 512MB upgrade is a good thing, but 256MB wasn't quite as bad as everyone made it sound.
I don't understand. Is hardware (a box conected where the monitor should be) copying really that big a problem that it requires something like this? The two people in the world that actually use a piece of hardware to copy video from a computer would find a way around this wouldn't they? Someone explain this to me.
I've seen Wolfgang Puck on Food Network's "Iron Chef", he is a very well known chef trained in french cooking but with influences from around the world. Why he would have his name on coffee of all things I have no idea.
Exactly, that is the one thing I have to have. I'm always searching for something that I can't find on the page and it's so nice to be able to just hit the highlight button and boom, there it is. Other than that I really have no use for a search field at all, I almost always just go to google.com for searches in safari for example (though I don't know why).
"the site reports that Windows XP installs without a hitch on the systems and that casually trying to install Mac OS X for Intel on a Dell doesn't work... yet..."
Keep in mind that the developer systems are probably built with off the shelf hardware, and doesn't contain the drm hardware that will be required to install OSX-x86.
This guy is way out of the loop. He doesn't understand why Apple would switch from PPC? Because IBM doesn't give a damn about Apple. They are doing as little as possible in development of the G5, and they were never going to get a G5 in a PowerBook.
Why not AMD? Are you on crack!? Sure, if Apple only sold desktops, and only cared about this generation of processors (which is what got them into this mess in the first place). The Athlon64 is a great desktop chip. But they don't have anything that comes close to Centrino. That is what Apple really likes the look of. And you can bet that Intel isn't planning on letting AMD beat them in desktop CPUs next gen like they did this one. It makes perfect sense for Apple to choose Intel. That was their only choice really.
Why would you want a Dothan in your MAC? That would be like... 00:2B:Dothan:4E:85:8C I just don't think it would work. (maybe it has something to do with IPc6?)
Where are AMD's great, low-power, laptop chips? That is a big part of the reason they chose Intel I would bet. Plus Apple has seen what Intel has coming down the road, and maybe it looks better than what AMD has coming.
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Looks like I will be getting a Mac to replace my PC. : )
The only reason for Apple to switch to x86 is Windows compatibility. Imagine the average consumer looking at Dell, HP, etc... then they see the Apple Macx86 that runs Windows just like the Dell, but looks awesome and runs this OSX that everyone is talking about. If this is true, this could be a very exciting time. Apple could become a serious contender.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but do you really think a second of memory card writing takes the same amount of power as a second of 802.11 broadcasting?
I am not depriving anyone of anything, so regardless of the legal definition of stealing I'm not going to feel bad about it.
Um, no. I download music because I can't afford CDs. I'm not costing anyone anything. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of running this extortion racket is actually greater than the loss of profit due to file sharing. (Anyone have a study to confirm/contradict this claim?)
From http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdat
So this is what Steve was talking about.
They're not the same mechanically. You'd have to be a moron to say so. But they might use alot of the same parts. I assumed that is what the parent meant, maybe I gave hime too much credit.
But the Lexus will still ride better and be much more comfortable. Why? It's in the details, and that's where Apple excels over most other computer makers, they get the details right.
I thought that 256MB of RAM was ridiculous when Apple launched the Mini, but then I used one at Best Buy and was very surprised at how well it could run multiple iApps without a noticeable slowdown. Of course the 512MB upgrade is a good thing, but 256MB wasn't quite as bad as everyone made it sound.
I don't understand. Is hardware (a box conected where the monitor should be) copying really that big a problem that it requires something like this? The two people in the world that actually use a piece of hardware to copy video from a computer would find a way around this wouldn't they? Someone explain this to me.
I've seen Wolfgang Puck on Food Network's "Iron Chef", he is a very well known chef trained in french cooking but with influences from around the world. Why he would have his name on coffee of all things I have no idea.
Highlighter.
Exactly, that is the one thing I have to have. I'm always searching for something that I can't find on the page and it's so nice to be able to just hit the highlight button and boom, there it is. Other than that I really have no use for a search field at all, I almost always just go to google.com for searches in safari for example (though I don't know why).
This guy is way out of the loop. He doesn't understand why Apple would switch from PPC? Because IBM doesn't give a damn about Apple. They are doing as little as possible in development of the G5, and they were never going to get a G5 in a PowerBook. Why not AMD? Are you on crack!? Sure, if Apple only sold desktops, and only cared about this generation of processors (which is what got them into this mess in the first place). The Athlon64 is a great desktop chip. But they don't have anything that comes close to Centrino. That is what Apple really likes the look of. And you can bet that Intel isn't planning on letting AMD beat them in desktop CPUs next gen like they did this one. It makes perfect sense for Apple to choose Intel. That was their only choice really.
And you might want to take a look at this... http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Co nceptual/universal_binary/
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=243 9
Errr... I mean IPv6.
Why would you want a Dothan in your MAC?
That would be like... 00:2B:Dothan:4E:85:8C
I just don't think it would work. (maybe it has something to do with IPc6?)
Where are AMD's great, low-power, laptop chips? That is a big part of the reason they chose Intel I would bet. Plus Apple has seen what Intel has coming down the road, and maybe it looks better than what AMD has coming.
I don't know about proprietary, but they have said that x86 Macs will not use Openfirmware.
Wow, your behind. Yes, its x86. The developer system is running a 3.6Ghz P4.
Jobs is CEO of a publicly traded corperation, it's his job to be greedy.
According to http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+ali gns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=st.num .
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Looks like I will be getting a Mac to replace my PC. : )
1. Make dual-boot Mac that sells like hotcakes. 2. Developers start writing more for Mac. 3. Mac takes over marketshare majority. 4. Profit!!!!
The only reason for Apple to switch to x86 is Windows compatibility. Imagine the average consumer looking at Dell, HP, etc... then they see the Apple Macx86 that runs Windows just like the Dell, but looks awesome and runs this OSX that everyone is talking about. If this is true, this could be a very exciting time. Apple could become a serious contender.