iMeowbot
Sep 26, 12:01 AM
But seriously how many cores does anyone REALLY need?
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
Reach9
Apr 20, 08:36 PM
Oh great another Android vs. iOS argument.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:49 PM
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 06:22 PM
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Allah decided that, and Allah precedes Islam (Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah [slave/servant of God]). The God of Islam bears little resemblance to the God of the New Testament.
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 12:37 PM
Let's not forget that these are the same people championing the reduction of C02 emissions under the banner of "stopping climate change," when a) nature is producing three times the C02 than humans are, and b) C02 is itself responsible for about 3-9% of the greenhouse effect (global warming).
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor! Does anybody see Greenpeace protesting steam?
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I'll stop short of mentioning their (admittedly unproven) ties to the ALF....
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
MisterK
Apr 9, 03:17 PM
There are a host of games that fall into the overlap between iOS devices and dedicated gaming consoles. Any of the more casual games (crosswords, Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies... anything that plays well on a touchscreen) are where Apple is eating Nintendo/Sony's lunch. I hope Apple continues to make strides into gaming because they do interfaces and hardware really well. I can see them going the way of the Kinect on the next AppleTV; this works well with Apple's assumed NO BUTTONS policy, but allows them to go beyond the very basic mechanics that touch screens limit you to.
Some games work better where you have buttons and it would be fantastic if Apple allowed 3rd party wireless controllers. These hardcore games may not have a significant enough share for Apple to need to compete here, but if they opened it up to a buttoned controller, they could have a shot at the entire market, instead of the $2 average games market.
Also, the nature of development for iOS means fewer large studio games and that means some lack of polish. You can say what you want about Angry Birds, but it's no God Of War. It would be great if Apple created their own in-house game development studio. I thought they were going this way when they released Texas Hold 'Em. They could help to raise the bar because they could put in significant resources into an inexpensive (for the consumer) game and treat it as a loss leader to sell their hardware and more app/media purchases.
Great games have come and gone, but no one has really created another Mario. Sony has shown that they are incapable of creating anything so iconic, and Microsoft has Halo � very close, but I don't think it is at the same level as a brand.
An Apple funded Mario-styled hit, along with the allowance of hardcore gaming peripherals could shut the competition down.
Some games work better where you have buttons and it would be fantastic if Apple allowed 3rd party wireless controllers. These hardcore games may not have a significant enough share for Apple to need to compete here, but if they opened it up to a buttoned controller, they could have a shot at the entire market, instead of the $2 average games market.
Also, the nature of development for iOS means fewer large studio games and that means some lack of polish. You can say what you want about Angry Birds, but it's no God Of War. It would be great if Apple created their own in-house game development studio. I thought they were going this way when they released Texas Hold 'Em. They could help to raise the bar because they could put in significant resources into an inexpensive (for the consumer) game and treat it as a loss leader to sell their hardware and more app/media purchases.
Great games have come and gone, but no one has really created another Mario. Sony has shown that they are incapable of creating anything so iconic, and Microsoft has Halo � very close, but I don't think it is at the same level as a brand.
An Apple funded Mario-styled hit, along with the allowance of hardcore gaming peripherals could shut the competition down.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:34 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
KindredMAC
Jul 11, 11:37 PM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 08:50 PM
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
�algiris
May 2, 09:30 AM
How stupid does a user needs to be in order to install, run and then enter credit card information into an application that pops up by itself?
:eek:
Indeed. He (user in general) can be running NASA mainframe, but if he's dumbass nothing will help.
:eek:
Indeed. He (user in general) can be running NASA mainframe, but if he's dumbass nothing will help.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:30 PM
I don't mind that you have a different opinion, you just represent that opinion badly.
So should someone else represent my opinion for me?
I'm having a hard time understanding how I can represent my own personal opinion poorly.
So should someone else represent my opinion for me?
I'm having a hard time understanding how I can represent my own personal opinion poorly.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 03:50 PM
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 01:24 AM
I made a joke before about what the hell anyone would need with 8 cores, but the truth is that I've been doing so much simultaneous photo, PS/InD, video at work this past couple weeks that I'm constantly taxing the 2GHz dual G5 w/ 4.5GB of RAM.. I mean like grinding it to a halt. Same with my MacBook, and don't even get me started on my iMac G5 Rev C.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
The Demi-Gods may be able to back me up on this, but Apple's not been great on this front despite leading (well, NEXT) the front on main stream multi-processor systems.
/rant
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
2 core OS? You runnin' Vista? :-D
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 03:57 PM
Care to explain that for the rest of us? In what way has UV radition to do with heat radiation?
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
This is just logic. uv AND heat are more potent due to o-zone decimation. Let me see if i can think of an example...............................erm ok car windows filter out uv rays and are tinted so they keep out some heat. If the window is closed you are a little more protected and a little cooler, if it is open you are a little more unprotected and hotter. (in summertime when the temperature is hotter and the earth is tilted towerd the sun)
Machead III
Aug 29, 11:44 AM
Just look at peopel today, even in this forum. Just 5 years ago there would be far less worried faces around, we left that to the lab coats and their crackpot theories.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
I guess it was the recent natural disasters and the heatwaves that did it.
Well, if that's what's got you worried, then good. I hate to say it, but you need to be very, very worried. You thought this summer was hot? Think what it will be like in 10, 20, 50 years.
Think what it will be like in a 100.
Life on Earth is notoriously sensitive to temperatures. We were sweating like pigs with the increase of only a fractions of a degree.
By 2100 if we don't implement vast changes, and this is even if we maintain the rate we're at now, the Earth will have warmed by about 4 degrees C.
At this point human life expectancies will have probably halved. Give it another 100 years or so and that's it, game over, we're done, another species added to the no doubt vast list of intelligent species throughout the universe that have destroyed themselves in the pursuit of wealth.
gopher
Oct 9, 11:38 AM
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
totoum
Apr 13, 02:32 AM
Oh but it will sync the sound for you
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
I ran a dialup BBS from 1983-1992 and we had p0rn, FidoNet Email, discussion forums, software downloads, etc....
The Internet made stuff faster, more graphical, and brought stuff to a wider audience - but for us early birds, everything has always kinda been there.
toodeep
Sep 20, 04:07 AM
Paraphrasing @emotion: "it's an mpeg-2 world".
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
Darth.Titan
Oct 7, 11:45 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:18 PM
- They've indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of starving Africans by preventing the development of genetically-engineered foods.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:30 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment