Nermal
Nov 15, 01:18 AM
I filled the form with gibberish and got this:
Internet Explorer, you're fired.
That should have been said a long time ago. After Microsoft cemented a monopoly of the Web-browser market, it let Internet Explorer go stale, parceling out ho-hum updates that neglected vulnerabilities routinely exploited by hostile Web sites. Not until August's Windows XP Service Pack 2 update did (some) users get any real relief.
And yet people found reasons to stick with IE -- alternative browsers cost money, were too slow, too complicated, or didn't work with enough Web sites.
No more. Tuesday, the answer to IE arrived: a safe, free, fast, simple and compatible browser called Mozilla Firefox.
Firefox (available for Win 98 or newer, Mac OS X and Linux at www.mozilla.org) is an unlikely rival, developed by a small nonprofit group with extensive volunteer help. Its code dates to Netscape and its open-source successor, Mozilla, but in the two years since Firefox debuted as a minimal, browser-only offshoot of those sprawling suites, it has grown into a remarkable product.
Firefox displays an elegant simplicity within and without. Its toolbar presents only the basic browsing commands: back, forward, reload, stop, home. Its Options screen consists of five simple categories of settings -- most of which don't need adjusting, since the defaults actually make sense.
One in particular should delight many long-suffering Web users: Firefox blocks pop-up ads automatically.
But Firefox's security goes deeper than that. It doesn't support Microsoft's dangerous ActiveX software, which gives a Web site the run of your computer. It omits IE's extensive hooks into the rest of Windows, which can turn a mishap into a systemwide meltdown.
Firefox resists "phishing" scams, in which con artists lure users into entering personal info on fake Web pages, by making it easier to tell good sites from bad. When you land on an encrypted page -- almost no phishing sites provide this protection -- Firefox advertises that status by highlighting the address bar in yellow. It also lists that page's domain name on the status bar; if that doesn't match what you see in the address bar, you're probably on a phishing site.
To keep Firefox current with any security fixes, the browser is designed to check for updates automatically.
A "Find" bar at the bottom of Firefox's window lets you search for words on a page without blocking your view of the page itself; as you type a query, the first matching item is highlighted in green. "Find Next" and "Find Previous" buttons jump to other matches, and a "Highlight" button paints all of them in yellow.
For searches across the entire Web, a box at the top right provides a shortcut to Google queries, and a menu lists five other sites, including Yahoo, Amazon and eBay. Downloadable plug-ins offer access to such resources as the Internet Movie Database.
What if that Google search yields four interesting sites? Hold down the Control key as you click each link, and they will open behind separate tabs in your existing window. This tabbed browsing -- a feature shared with almost all non-IE browsers -- is far more efficient and far less cluttered than the old one-page-per-window approach.
Busy readers can also use Firefox's built-in RSS (Really Simple Syndication) newsreader to fetch updates from Web sites that publish their content using this standard. This "Live Bookmarks" feature lacks the flexibility of a stand-alone newsreader, but it's also simpler.
Web addicts can customize Firefox to no end with browser extensions that add functions and themes that alter its looks. Find the Options window's settings too limiting? Type "about: config" into the address bar and you'll see about 600 preferences to tweak.
I've used Firefox as my default browser since February, and in that time I've found few Web sites that don't look right in it. Most of the time, it's the Web site's fault: Microsoft's MSN Video blocks all non-IE browsers, while SideStep's airfare-search tool employs ActiveX (an ActiveX-free version is in the works). In these rare cases, I will fire up IE -- it's not like I can uninstall it -- or, more often, vote with my mouse and move on to another site.
Switching from IE to Firefox is nearly painless. Download a 4.7-megabyte installer, run it, and let it import your existing IE data. Your plug-ins, bookmarks, browsing history and even cookies should transfer over (IE's home page and any saved passwords should be imported, but were not in my tests); you can then pick up in Firefox exactly where you left off in IE.
I think anybody using Internet Explorer should switch to Firefox today. Seriously. Even if you've loaded every IE security update, Firefox will give you a faster, more useful view of the Web. If you haven't -- or if you use a pre-XP version of Windows ineligible for Service Pack 2's security fixes -- it would be lunacy to stick with IE.
(If you're using Mac OS X or Linux, there's no such urgency; Apple's Safari, for example, is a fine browser in its own right and offers a few conveniences that Firefox leaves out.)
Firefox's story doesn't end with this 1.0 version. Some upgrades, such as a rewrite of its awkward bookmarks-management interface, are waiting for later releases. But the beauty of an open-source product like this is that you can participate in its evolution. Firefox's code is open for anybody to inspect and improve; you can browse a database of bugs (bugzilla.mozilla.org) and vote on what you want to see changed next.
All of these advantages may still not suffice to knock off IE anytime soon. But Firefox's development won't grind to a halt if it doesn't suit some company's marketing plans. Can you say that about IE?
Internet Explorer, you're fired.
That should have been said a long time ago. After Microsoft cemented a monopoly of the Web-browser market, it let Internet Explorer go stale, parceling out ho-hum updates that neglected vulnerabilities routinely exploited by hostile Web sites. Not until August's Windows XP Service Pack 2 update did (some) users get any real relief.
And yet people found reasons to stick with IE -- alternative browsers cost money, were too slow, too complicated, or didn't work with enough Web sites.
No more. Tuesday, the answer to IE arrived: a safe, free, fast, simple and compatible browser called Mozilla Firefox.
Firefox (available for Win 98 or newer, Mac OS X and Linux at www.mozilla.org) is an unlikely rival, developed by a small nonprofit group with extensive volunteer help. Its code dates to Netscape and its open-source successor, Mozilla, but in the two years since Firefox debuted as a minimal, browser-only offshoot of those sprawling suites, it has grown into a remarkable product.
Firefox displays an elegant simplicity within and without. Its toolbar presents only the basic browsing commands: back, forward, reload, stop, home. Its Options screen consists of five simple categories of settings -- most of which don't need adjusting, since the defaults actually make sense.
One in particular should delight many long-suffering Web users: Firefox blocks pop-up ads automatically.
But Firefox's security goes deeper than that. It doesn't support Microsoft's dangerous ActiveX software, which gives a Web site the run of your computer. It omits IE's extensive hooks into the rest of Windows, which can turn a mishap into a systemwide meltdown.
Firefox resists "phishing" scams, in which con artists lure users into entering personal info on fake Web pages, by making it easier to tell good sites from bad. When you land on an encrypted page -- almost no phishing sites provide this protection -- Firefox advertises that status by highlighting the address bar in yellow. It also lists that page's domain name on the status bar; if that doesn't match what you see in the address bar, you're probably on a phishing site.
To keep Firefox current with any security fixes, the browser is designed to check for updates automatically.
A "Find" bar at the bottom of Firefox's window lets you search for words on a page without blocking your view of the page itself; as you type a query, the first matching item is highlighted in green. "Find Next" and "Find Previous" buttons jump to other matches, and a "Highlight" button paints all of them in yellow.
For searches across the entire Web, a box at the top right provides a shortcut to Google queries, and a menu lists five other sites, including Yahoo, Amazon and eBay. Downloadable plug-ins offer access to such resources as the Internet Movie Database.
What if that Google search yields four interesting sites? Hold down the Control key as you click each link, and they will open behind separate tabs in your existing window. This tabbed browsing -- a feature shared with almost all non-IE browsers -- is far more efficient and far less cluttered than the old one-page-per-window approach.
Busy readers can also use Firefox's built-in RSS (Really Simple Syndication) newsreader to fetch updates from Web sites that publish their content using this standard. This "Live Bookmarks" feature lacks the flexibility of a stand-alone newsreader, but it's also simpler.
Web addicts can customize Firefox to no end with browser extensions that add functions and themes that alter its looks. Find the Options window's settings too limiting? Type "about: config" into the address bar and you'll see about 600 preferences to tweak.
I've used Firefox as my default browser since February, and in that time I've found few Web sites that don't look right in it. Most of the time, it's the Web site's fault: Microsoft's MSN Video blocks all non-IE browsers, while SideStep's airfare-search tool employs ActiveX (an ActiveX-free version is in the works). In these rare cases, I will fire up IE -- it's not like I can uninstall it -- or, more often, vote with my mouse and move on to another site.
Switching from IE to Firefox is nearly painless. Download a 4.7-megabyte installer, run it, and let it import your existing IE data. Your plug-ins, bookmarks, browsing history and even cookies should transfer over (IE's home page and any saved passwords should be imported, but were not in my tests); you can then pick up in Firefox exactly where you left off in IE.
I think anybody using Internet Explorer should switch to Firefox today. Seriously. Even if you've loaded every IE security update, Firefox will give you a faster, more useful view of the Web. If you haven't -- or if you use a pre-XP version of Windows ineligible for Service Pack 2's security fixes -- it would be lunacy to stick with IE.
(If you're using Mac OS X or Linux, there's no such urgency; Apple's Safari, for example, is a fine browser in its own right and offers a few conveniences that Firefox leaves out.)
Firefox's story doesn't end with this 1.0 version. Some upgrades, such as a rewrite of its awkward bookmarks-management interface, are waiting for later releases. But the beauty of an open-source product like this is that you can participate in its evolution. Firefox's code is open for anybody to inspect and improve; you can browse a database of bugs (bugzilla.mozilla.org) and vote on what you want to see changed next.
All of these advantages may still not suffice to knock off IE anytime soon. But Firefox's development won't grind to a halt if it doesn't suit some company's marketing plans. Can you say that about IE?
wrylachlan
Oct 26, 09:39 AM
I don't think I'd go for a full-sized tablet at 1200-1500. Too expensive and too big to carry around.
However... One of the things I'd be really interested in if the price was right, would be something with a screen the size of a hardcover novel but extremely thin and light. Like an e-book device, but with the added abilities of a pda.
Here's how apple could leverage their technology to make this a seller.
1) Get partnership deals with as many different ebook vendors as possible and create iBookshelf app with central repository for all your books, magazines, etc.
2) Build firewire into the device so it can connect to your iMac.
3) Via rendezvous, you plug it into your mac at night, when you wake up in the morning, your new york times, etc. etc. is in the "EBook"
4)A sherlock-like search engine would automatically cross-reference all your news. You read a story on corporate fraud in the NY Times, and a simple click takes you to the corresponding story in the Wall Street Journal.
5)While reading on it, you get the urge to take notes... done via inkwell.
6) Rolodex? Yup. Calendar? Yup. To Do list? yup.
And one more thing.
7) Automatically syncs with iphoto so you have your photo albumn on the go. You get to work, put the unit standing up on your desk and there's your wife's picture.
Oh, and one more thing...
8)With rendezvous and bluetooth, it could check email on the go by rendezvousing with your bluetooth cell-phone.
There are no other comparable devices in this space. The Franklin eBookman has the pda functions, but the screen is crap. The Gemstar device has a great screen, but no PDA functions. None of them have anything like sherlock. Nor iPhoto. And wireless e-mail? Totally unique. Also, the process of getting info into other e-book devises is cumbersome, to which Apple could apply their simplicty magic.
And finally, the market demographics are the same. The people who are buying e-book devices, are the same people who are buying Macs, are the same people who are buying high-end PDAs.
If they could bring a device like this to market at around $700 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
However... One of the things I'd be really interested in if the price was right, would be something with a screen the size of a hardcover novel but extremely thin and light. Like an e-book device, but with the added abilities of a pda.
Here's how apple could leverage their technology to make this a seller.
1) Get partnership deals with as many different ebook vendors as possible and create iBookshelf app with central repository for all your books, magazines, etc.
2) Build firewire into the device so it can connect to your iMac.
3) Via rendezvous, you plug it into your mac at night, when you wake up in the morning, your new york times, etc. etc. is in the "EBook"
4)A sherlock-like search engine would automatically cross-reference all your news. You read a story on corporate fraud in the NY Times, and a simple click takes you to the corresponding story in the Wall Street Journal.
5)While reading on it, you get the urge to take notes... done via inkwell.
6) Rolodex? Yup. Calendar? Yup. To Do list? yup.
And one more thing.
7) Automatically syncs with iphoto so you have your photo albumn on the go. You get to work, put the unit standing up on your desk and there's your wife's picture.
Oh, and one more thing...
8)With rendezvous and bluetooth, it could check email on the go by rendezvousing with your bluetooth cell-phone.
There are no other comparable devices in this space. The Franklin eBookman has the pda functions, but the screen is crap. The Gemstar device has a great screen, but no PDA functions. None of them have anything like sherlock. Nor iPhoto. And wireless e-mail? Totally unique. Also, the process of getting info into other e-book devises is cumbersome, to which Apple could apply their simplicty magic.
And finally, the market demographics are the same. The people who are buying e-book devices, are the same people who are buying Macs, are the same people who are buying high-end PDAs.
If they could bring a device like this to market at around $700 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
MacPhreak
Mar 24, 09:48 AM
That's all fine and well, but I just want a version that doesn't require X11 and can print.
It can't print?! I knew it was limited, but really...an office suite that can't print isn't much use, now is it?
It can't print?! I knew it was limited, but really...an office suite that can't print isn't much use, now is it?
Vlade
Nov 23, 10:50 PM
What's our team number, and anything else I need to set it up?
Team Macrumors is 3446 , and your username is ...um.... mAc-Vlade :D ;)
Check out the FAQ here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=21908
Team Macrumors is 3446 , and your username is ...um.... mAc-Vlade :D ;)
Check out the FAQ here - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=21908
zap2
Mar 18, 07:51 PM
What did the box ever do to you :(
Maybe lied to me...we'll find out in 2 days!
But yeah, I'll fix that:)
Maybe lied to me...we'll find out in 2 days!
But yeah, I'll fix that:)
vniow
Sep 8, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by King Cobra
BTW, when is the expo? Seriously...
wallpaper, natural scenery
200 Beautiful Natural Scenery
The stunning natural scenery
Contains natural scenery
200 Beautiful Natural Scenery
200 Beautiful Natural Scenery
Scenery Wallpapers
natural scenery Paint,
Public Wallpaper picture
field of natural scenery
Falls natural scenery for
Nature Scenery Wallpaper
Natural+scenery+of+
BTW, when is the expo? Seriously...
arn
Sep 10, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by gbojim
Ummm
Unless I'm missing some sarcasm here, this was announced with the XServe back in May. Ship time is late this year.
apparently a lot of people missed it the first time around... :)
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020514114925.shtml
arn
Ummm
Unless I'm missing some sarcasm here, this was announced with the XServe back in May. Ship time is late this year.
apparently a lot of people missed it the first time around... :)
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/05/20020514114925.shtml
arn
javajedi
Oct 12, 07:35 PM
ddtlm check this out, this may suprise you:
I ran the double precision test (sqtrt()) for the first time today as a c program. I compiled on the same machine as I ran the java version, with gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin didn't come with 3.x).
Here are the parameters to gcc:
$ gcc -march=i686 -O3 -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fforce-mem -fforce-addr -fexpensive-optimizations -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
Using this, the C program does it in 7.01 seconds. The same code, in java does it in 5.9. The javac, or the jvm seems to better be able to tear apart the loop. I think Java being "slow" is another common misconception that people have ;)
Oh well...
Meanwhile on the PPC side of things, I compiled the fp test against:
mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops
Ofcourse this is running in 10.2, and I'm still stuck at around 90 seconds.
Is there anything else you think we can do aside from vectorizing it? Lastly, now that we're all on the same page now on how we are compiling this, I reran the silly single percision int test, and my powerbook looses out to the 750FX. Same platform, same code and everything, but heck?
I ran the double precision test (sqtrt()) for the first time today as a c program. I compiled on the same machine as I ran the java version, with gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin didn't come with 3.x).
Here are the parameters to gcc:
$ gcc -march=i686 -O3 -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fforce-mem -fforce-addr -fexpensive-optimizations -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer
Using this, the C program does it in 7.01 seconds. The same code, in java does it in 5.9. The javac, or the jvm seems to better be able to tear apart the loop. I think Java being "slow" is another common misconception that people have ;)
Oh well...
Meanwhile on the PPC side of things, I compiled the fp test against:
mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops
Ofcourse this is running in 10.2, and I'm still stuck at around 90 seconds.
Is there anything else you think we can do aside from vectorizing it? Lastly, now that we're all on the same page now on how we are compiling this, I reran the silly single percision int test, and my powerbook looses out to the 750FX. Same platform, same code and everything, but heck?
Durandal7
Sep 4, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I know your real name ;)
B2TM
I know his real name too, cept' I don't remember how to spell the last name :p
Well, I know your real name ;)
B2TM
I know his real name too, cept' I don't remember how to spell the last name :p
themadchemist
Mar 2, 11:44 PM
at the very least, if you were not a mod, you would be a G3
...and maybe even higher
...my guess is that 604e at the very highest reasonable level is at 15,000, and G3 at 20,000 but i would assume much lower for those levels and maybe G4 is at 20,000
...and G5 at 50,000 or 100,000 since it would be no fun for someone to reach that and have nothing to loook forward to
it could be that G5 is set at a million to make it unattainable:p
note: maybe arn has not decided yet what to give people beyond a 601 and there is no set level for the next level
Maybe one should receive his/her G4 and G5 status 6 months after it is reached in post #'s or, in other words, "announced."
That way, it would be a fairly accurate depiction of market conditions. :D
...and maybe even higher
...my guess is that 604e at the very highest reasonable level is at 15,000, and G3 at 20,000 but i would assume much lower for those levels and maybe G4 is at 20,000
...and G5 at 50,000 or 100,000 since it would be no fun for someone to reach that and have nothing to loook forward to
it could be that G5 is set at a million to make it unattainable:p
note: maybe arn has not decided yet what to give people beyond a 601 and there is no set level for the next level
Maybe one should receive his/her G4 and G5 status 6 months after it is reached in post #'s or, in other words, "announced."
That way, it would be a fairly accurate depiction of market conditions. :D
iMeowbot
Oct 16, 04:30 PM
wonder if they were windows web servers...
Yep, they were initially attempting to use ASP.NET and it lost. There is at least one outstanding vulnerability in that product relating to paths, and apparently someone messed with their mail capability too.
Yep, they were initially attempting to use ASP.NET and it lost. There is at least one outstanding vulnerability in that product relating to paths, and apparently someone messed with their mail capability too.
ftaok
Aug 28, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by tliptak
So if its not overclocked what is it. Did it just get passed to run at 1.25 dont know That's right. I'm 99.999999% sure that the 1.25ghz chips that Apple will be using are fully rated to run at 1.25ghz.
It would be extremely stupid for Apple to put in chips rated up to 1ghz in there and OC them to 1.25ghz. As the yields of the 1ghz G4 continue to rise (they should be since they've been pumping them out for 8 months), they're bound to get chips that pass at higher frequencies. Plus, the manufacturing techniques have probably improved so they get more and more fast chips.
So in conclusion, the dual-1.25ghz Macs will have G4s that are rated for 1.25ghz or higher.
So if its not overclocked what is it. Did it just get passed to run at 1.25 dont know That's right. I'm 99.999999% sure that the 1.25ghz chips that Apple will be using are fully rated to run at 1.25ghz.
It would be extremely stupid for Apple to put in chips rated up to 1ghz in there and OC them to 1.25ghz. As the yields of the 1ghz G4 continue to rise (they should be since they've been pumping them out for 8 months), they're bound to get chips that pass at higher frequencies. Plus, the manufacturing techniques have probably improved so they get more and more fast chips.
So in conclusion, the dual-1.25ghz Macs will have G4s that are rated for 1.25ghz or higher.
D*I*S_Frontman
Sep 20, 12:38 PM
I disagree that the segment of the market that drives CPU speed lust is growing smaller. When it comes to computer speed, "perceived value" rules the marketplace, not real computing power being continuously employed by the end user. Here are two automotive analogies:
SUVs: I live in suburban Chicago where 4WD Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes driven by the affluent can be seen on nearly every street. I bet the average usage of 4WD systems to get these people out of a jam occurs maybe once or twice a year. Yes we have harsh winters, but the roads are plowed and sanded/salted as necessary. There is absolutely NO NEED for that kind of performance.
SPORTS CARS: I also see Posche 911s all over the place. Beautiful car that can go from 0-60 in less than five seconds. Top speed of 150 mph. NO ONE can even BEGIN to employ this kind of brute force in the city. You would have to drive to Montana to open the thing up.
In both cases, the bragged upon features are essentially useless to the owner 95+% of the time. But people still buy SUVs and sporty cars in DROVES.
If you are running FCP3, doing audio engineeering, or doing tons of high-end Photoshop rendering work, a powerful computer might lead to productivity increases. Then yearly upgrades are probably a must, as the money you spend on the latest system is actually recouped in increased productivity.
Most of us, however, tap the full strength of our CPUs rarely, and having durable hardware with a stable OS is far more important than a slightly faster system. Heck, I am typing this on my G3/400 Pismo which is my sole computer, and while I will someday do the NewerTech G4/500 upgrade, I am not "suffering" the way it is. I don't know what a "snappy" OS is, but I do know that OS X 10.1.5 seems to be every bit as fast as OS9 was/is, just as stable, and now utterly crash-proof.
I am in a band and my bass player (who engineers our material) wants to get a Mac. I have told him that he should get two: a 12.1 iBook now (best computing value on the planet right now, $ per feature, IMHO) and wait a year for a new tower once the new chips come out. 90% of everything he'll ever do will be easily done by the iBook (WP, web, email, finance, database/spreadsheet, etc., plus it's portable) and the heavy lifting of recording, mixing and mastering up to 48 tracks of 24bit/96khz audio (complete with lots of plug-ins) can be done by the next generation of Macs. The only reason I would ever suggest he wait is that current Macs don't have the raw power to run MOTU's DP @24/96 for 48 tracks w/plug-ins.
But that is a case of actually using close to 100% of system resources to accomplish the task for which you bought the thing. Once he acquires the system, he won't need a new one for years--if EVER. Once your system can do everything you ask it to, reliably, you don't NEED a new computer--EVER.
This discussion is rarely about "need," however. It's about gear lust.
EDIT: Oh, and if your primary system draw is from some GAME (insert your favorite title here), why not just get a dedicated gaming system instead of making your computer a toy?
SUVs: I live in suburban Chicago where 4WD Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes driven by the affluent can be seen on nearly every street. I bet the average usage of 4WD systems to get these people out of a jam occurs maybe once or twice a year. Yes we have harsh winters, but the roads are plowed and sanded/salted as necessary. There is absolutely NO NEED for that kind of performance.
SPORTS CARS: I also see Posche 911s all over the place. Beautiful car that can go from 0-60 in less than five seconds. Top speed of 150 mph. NO ONE can even BEGIN to employ this kind of brute force in the city. You would have to drive to Montana to open the thing up.
In both cases, the bragged upon features are essentially useless to the owner 95+% of the time. But people still buy SUVs and sporty cars in DROVES.
If you are running FCP3, doing audio engineeering, or doing tons of high-end Photoshop rendering work, a powerful computer might lead to productivity increases. Then yearly upgrades are probably a must, as the money you spend on the latest system is actually recouped in increased productivity.
Most of us, however, tap the full strength of our CPUs rarely, and having durable hardware with a stable OS is far more important than a slightly faster system. Heck, I am typing this on my G3/400 Pismo which is my sole computer, and while I will someday do the NewerTech G4/500 upgrade, I am not "suffering" the way it is. I don't know what a "snappy" OS is, but I do know that OS X 10.1.5 seems to be every bit as fast as OS9 was/is, just as stable, and now utterly crash-proof.
I am in a band and my bass player (who engineers our material) wants to get a Mac. I have told him that he should get two: a 12.1 iBook now (best computing value on the planet right now, $ per feature, IMHO) and wait a year for a new tower once the new chips come out. 90% of everything he'll ever do will be easily done by the iBook (WP, web, email, finance, database/spreadsheet, etc., plus it's portable) and the heavy lifting of recording, mixing and mastering up to 48 tracks of 24bit/96khz audio (complete with lots of plug-ins) can be done by the next generation of Macs. The only reason I would ever suggest he wait is that current Macs don't have the raw power to run MOTU's DP @24/96 for 48 tracks w/plug-ins.
But that is a case of actually using close to 100% of system resources to accomplish the task for which you bought the thing. Once he acquires the system, he won't need a new one for years--if EVER. Once your system can do everything you ask it to, reliably, you don't NEED a new computer--EVER.
This discussion is rarely about "need," however. It's about gear lust.
EDIT: Oh, and if your primary system draw is from some GAME (insert your favorite title here), why not just get a dedicated gaming system instead of making your computer a toy?
TMJ1974
Sep 29, 02:32 PM
I recent had to make this same decision......
In my case, I had to chose between a Quicksilver 733 that CompUSA had for $999 (including 2 year warranty) or one of the new ones (in my case, probably the dual 867) for $1699.
I went with the Quicksilver, and with the money I saved from the new ones...I've replaced the stock hard drive with 2 WD Special Edition drives, maxed out the RAM at 1.5GB, and will add a DVD-R drive. With the upgrades, I've still spent less than $1699.
I don't regret my choice at all....I realize "official" benchmarks will show my machine is slower than the new models, however, after having played with them in the store, my eyes can't tell any difference. Yes, for Photoshop and iMovie, the new ones would probably save me some time, but the Quicksilver will hold me over nicely until there is a "major" upgrade.
I'll be content to keep this until Apple goes with the new IBM chip, which seems to be able to offer a significant performance boost. Until then, I'll have a drink and wait :)
Tim
In my case, I had to chose between a Quicksilver 733 that CompUSA had for $999 (including 2 year warranty) or one of the new ones (in my case, probably the dual 867) for $1699.
I went with the Quicksilver, and with the money I saved from the new ones...I've replaced the stock hard drive with 2 WD Special Edition drives, maxed out the RAM at 1.5GB, and will add a DVD-R drive. With the upgrades, I've still spent less than $1699.
I don't regret my choice at all....I realize "official" benchmarks will show my machine is slower than the new models, however, after having played with them in the store, my eyes can't tell any difference. Yes, for Photoshop and iMovie, the new ones would probably save me some time, but the Quicksilver will hold me over nicely until there is a "major" upgrade.
I'll be content to keep this until Apple goes with the new IBM chip, which seems to be able to offer a significant performance boost. Until then, I'll have a drink and wait :)
Tim
Shrek
Sep 30, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
the day a 19 inch iMac comes out before apple brings out a 19inch LCD for its powermacs is the day monkeys fly out of my butt
tyler
Well, they could release a 19-inch iMac and a 19-inch Studio Display at the same time, you know. :p
the day a 19 inch iMac comes out before apple brings out a 19inch LCD for its powermacs is the day monkeys fly out of my butt
tyler
Well, they could release a 19-inch iMac and a 19-inch Studio Display at the same time, you know. :p
Sky Blue
Mar 17, 08:06 AM
I would be embarassed as heck if I had that in my living room. I think it looks pretty crappy. I'm more for the stylish mods...like the wood mac set or something in sleek glass or something...way too kiddie or hard core rpg nerd fanboy for me
Paul
agreed, looks tacky.
Paul
agreed, looks tacky.
john123
Nov 20, 09:20 PM
Well I'll be darned....
When Arn e-mailed me a couple months ago (and I was insanely busy and had very little time to post), I had no idea what was going on to prompt him to e-mail me to come back to MR.
I posted a few times on the Nov 5th rumor thread, and sadly found myself frustrated with the folks there. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but compared to what I remember from over a year ago, the proportion of folks who were irritating (i.e., "trolls" to use our lingo) was way too high. I got frustrated and stopped posting...especially because I realized that all my posts were taking me way off topic replying to the trolls!
So then I just came here tonight, checking out what was new, etc...and I find this forum -- a hangout for those of us who were around long ago. Too cool!
Great idea, Arn. Now if we could just boost the membership in here back up. I'd enjoy that a lot. Truthfully, I find myself reading MacNN a lot, but the discussions are far less spirited there.
Let's rev this place up!
When Arn e-mailed me a couple months ago (and I was insanely busy and had very little time to post), I had no idea what was going on to prompt him to e-mail me to come back to MR.
I posted a few times on the Nov 5th rumor thread, and sadly found myself frustrated with the folks there. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but compared to what I remember from over a year ago, the proportion of folks who were irritating (i.e., "trolls" to use our lingo) was way too high. I got frustrated and stopped posting...especially because I realized that all my posts were taking me way off topic replying to the trolls!
So then I just came here tonight, checking out what was new, etc...and I find this forum -- a hangout for those of us who were around long ago. Too cool!
Great idea, Arn. Now if we could just boost the membership in here back up. I'd enjoy that a lot. Truthfully, I find myself reading MacNN a lot, but the discussions are far less spirited there.
Let's rev this place up!
JSRockit
Sep 8, 12:06 PM
I agree...32MB VRAM is needed... Also, get rid of the CD-ROM and 128MB Ram standard unless Apple brings the low-end iBook to $999.
Patmian212
Jan 15, 05:23 AM
All I can say is it probably won't run better then Virtual PC 7. . . At a price that cheap im sure its even inferior to VPC7.
Mr. Anderson
Sep 11, 04:48 PM
you guys are all talking like the G5 chip is here. Am I missing something or is all this just hopeful speculation and talk out your ^ss?
Until we actually see the damn thing, its really not even worth worrying about - how long has talk of the G5 been going on now anyway, years!?
I'd wait until IBM's little talk in October, that at least might shed some light one way or the other about what the next CPU will be.
D
Until we actually see the damn thing, its really not even worth worrying about - how long has talk of the G5 been going on now anyway, years!?
I'd wait until IBM's little talk in October, that at least might shed some light one way or the other about what the next CPU will be.
D
peterjhill
Sep 8, 08:24 AM
Apple is pretty much forced to get an upgrade to the powerbook out that supports a superdrive now. Sony is probably one of the biggest competitors for the digital video user market (on the PC side). I personally would never buy a Sony computer if I was buying a PC, but some people like their Viao's.
Come on Steve, give us an early holiday present
Come on Steve, give us an early holiday present
pcypert
Mar 17, 02:17 AM
I don't even think the creators of the game would try and make that claim. A great, fun game for sure...but far from the greatest.
Paul
Paul
vniow
Sep 8, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i sometimes find it funny, but so many of my friends are huge fans of monty python
i love british humor and british movies in general...i was lucky enough to be a university student in london during my undergrad days way, way back when maggie was PM
after, that i started understanding british humor a lot more...still, some of the newer stuff loses me since there are a lot of new slang terms out there
I first got into it while playing a Monty Python PC game a few years back. It was the funniest, most bizarre and twisted thing I'd ever seen, (keep in mind that I was about 12, I've seen much more twisted things now and can think them at will!:D) I tried to find it again, but I never could.:( I talked my mom into buying a couple of the movies and a 12-tape collection and then I really got into it. I watch BBC from time to time, but usually only if that's on. That Ghram Norton guy's pretty funny though. :)
i sometimes find it funny, but so many of my friends are huge fans of monty python
i love british humor and british movies in general...i was lucky enough to be a university student in london during my undergrad days way, way back when maggie was PM
after, that i started understanding british humor a lot more...still, some of the newer stuff loses me since there are a lot of new slang terms out there
I first got into it while playing a Monty Python PC game a few years back. It was the funniest, most bizarre and twisted thing I'd ever seen, (keep in mind that I was about 12, I've seen much more twisted things now and can think them at will!:D) I tried to find it again, but I never could.:( I talked my mom into buying a couple of the movies and a 12-tape collection and then I really got into it. I watch BBC from time to time, but usually only if that's on. That Ghram Norton guy's pretty funny though. :)
john_satc
Jun 1, 06:10 AM
Ok...hearing that $9/hour is a lot for store workers, im wondering what an average wage is for working in a store? 'Cos i get �5.30 ~ $10 an hour and I only jsut started at the store...and im on a low wage compared to everyone else there. And that doesn't even get taxed.
No comments:
Post a Comment