ender land
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
milo
Sep 20, 11:39 AM
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 12:36 PM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
megan fox tattoos rib what
megan fox tattoos wrist.
megan fox tattoos right side
megan fox tattoos 2011. LoganT
Megan Fox Tattoos
megan fox tattoos rib what
megan fox tattoos rib what
Megan Fox shedding tattooed
megan fox tattoos meaning.
megan fox tattoos 2011. megan
Megan Fox TAttoo | News
Megan+fox+tattoos+2011
Megan Fox Tattoo 28 Photo
megan fox tattoos rib
megan fox tattoos marilyn
megan fox tattoos meaning.
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 10:32 AM
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Try that with XP Home.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by gopher
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!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
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.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
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.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
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.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
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.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
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.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
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!
I have a question for you:
Why does the Motorola G4 do so poorly in SPEC, while:
The MIPS R12000 & R14000,
The Intel Pentium III, 4 & Celeron,
The AMD Athlon,
The HP/Compaq PA-RISC,
The HP/Compaq Alpha,
The Sun SPARC,
The IBM Power3 & Power4,
all thoroughly trounce it? Only the Athlon and Pentium are x86 compatible. The MIPS R12000 only runs at 500MHz and it still kicks the snot out of the 1GHz G4. Why is that? Honestly, you don't believe Apple is at the mercy of a vast conspiracy which is the plot of SPEC and the processor manufacturers, do you?
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.
At certain highly specialized tasks, yes. Because these are two of the very few tasks which are ABLE with ANY amount of tweaking to perform well on the G4.
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.
Great idea.
Dear Microsoft,
I am displeased with the performance of Word v.X on my Mac (PowerBook G4 667). The cursor always seems to lag, and the application doesn't respond nearly as quickly as it does on my similar PC notebook. Could you like, fix this? Throw a little AltiVec in there, couldn't cost you more than $50,000.
Thanks,
Joe User
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.
So your argument has changed from "the G4 isn't slow" to "processor isn't everything anyway?"
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.
Of course "it is in the software." "It" is also in the hardware. "It" is in both. Apple needs faster software. They have been improving in that area. They need faster hardware as well. They have not been improving nearly as much as they need to be in that area.
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.
Finally, something you said that I agree with!
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
No. What I wanted to say is that fat persons CAN do something against that condition, but homosexuals can't. Obviously. So they deserve such actions like It Gets Better more than fat people. In my honest opinion.
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
But are you saying homosexuals should change it if they could?
GGJstudios
May 2, 01:00 PM
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 09:25 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
definitive
Apr 13, 11:25 AM
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
sparkleytone
Sep 20, 05:58 PM
Digital TV providers have absolutely no incentive to use an Apple branded box. They make a lot of revenue on rental of their own set-top boxes that have the ability to play their pay-per-view content. Apple is the competition and they still hold all of the cards (TV content monopoly).
I think you underestimate Apple's amazing sales pitch:
"Hey look! Free money!"
I think you underestimate Apple's amazing sales pitch:
"Hey look! Free money!"
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 07:39 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
milozauckerman
Jul 13, 11:16 AM
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?
Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 11:15 PM
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
MH01
Apr 21, 04:11 AM
So you are insulting all Apple users as those who "don't know what you're doing with your own devices."
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
charliehustle
Oct 8, 12:18 PM
Actually, to a degree it is...
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
huh? how so?
so because a Ferrari has better quality, it will sell larger numbers than a Honda Civic that more people can afford..
I don't believe you
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
Traditionally, Microsoft aimed Windows Mobile at corporations that wanted Windows as a standard across PCs and handhelds
you're using the failure of one company as an excuse for another one..
different people, different enterprise..
Using that logic, apple should not even be making computers, due to their fall down prior to being saved by the ipod..
Microsoft is not Google..
How many microsoft apps do you use on your iphone? Do you use them more than Google products?
I bet you use Google maps, Google search.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
the point I was trying to make was more of a business plan compared to open or closed. I guess people are assuming all these phones are going to be priced the same (apple vs others), I highly doubt that..
in the business world, there are different markets and demographics, and yes, the iphone does well across the board, but you have to look at everything including price, cost of plans, and so on..
you might not see kids in grade 8 getting iphones, because their parents dont' want spend that that much money,
you can have a number of different situations.. but apple only has one product, and they're trying to market it toward everyone..
google will be positioned better to target different demographics compared to apple..
what if a user wants actual buttons to type on (yes people like that still do exist) how can apple make any money off them?
essentially, apple just lost a customer, and you can't make assumptions that all people want full touch screens..
some people might not like the look of the iphone,
google is giving people a choice of which handset they want, and this will result in them selling a higher number of phones..
Insulting people does not help your case.
It just bothers me when people have a very biased and closed minded opinions when it comes to apple..
I wasn't talking about anyone specifically, so sorry if I offended anyone..
Dagless
Apr 9, 08:17 AM
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
samcraig
Mar 18, 12:04 PM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Agreed - and something I said several pages back...
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:41 AM
OS X being 25 years old (actually, UNIX is much older) is a GOOD thing, Software (Read OS) can evolve much more easily than hardware. Unix is a work in progress to this day, and this is why it is years (literally years) ahead of windows.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
As for X86 being great. I think that sure, the top X86 at 2.8Ghz is faster than the top G4 at 1.25Ghz, but not 2.2 times faster, as the clock would have you think. And when you add Altivec coded software like Photoship, then you actually get more IPC's than the P4. So the archtecture of the G4 is superior, However the P4 is faster by a small margin due to the significant speed advantage and its long pipeline.
I think a G5 with multicore process and a bump in clock will eclips the X86 entirely. AMD is the best bet against the G5 and when that day comes, as it will, this arguement will be moot.
I for one am still waiting on Apple to make a PB worth my $3500 investment. That I think is long overdue.
markieg
May 3, 06:34 AM
uninstall Macdefender instructions here http://t.co/9DLsgSU
