Postal
Oct 10, 11:40 AM
I can't help but see this as an indication that Apple's going to up the minimum memory in every Mac to 256 MB as of MWSF, and presumably the Powerbooks and PowerMacs would get 512.
Seeing as how I'm planning on getting an iBook right around then, it would be incredibly useful: not only would the system as it is from the factory run properly, it would expand the memory limit to 768 MB. Very important when you're trying to eke every last bit of battery life (by reducing disk access) and speed out of your laptop.
Seeing as how I'm planning on getting an iBook right around then, it would be incredibly useful: not only would the system as it is from the factory run properly, it would expand the memory limit to 768 MB. Very important when you're trying to eke every last bit of battery life (by reducing disk access) and speed out of your laptop.
Zygote
Sep 3, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
Maybe they're going to supply graphics chips for the Nintendo GameCube, shown in the entertainment stand.
As the owner of a GameCube I can say that much is accurate. ATI is the provider of the graphics chip that drives the Cube. In fact, if you look on one it has a big ATi sticker on the front.
I for one am hoping for a revision to the Ti line with the new graphics card and a processor bump within the next month. I've got the OK from the General Accounting Office that is my wife to purchase if they do.
Zyg
Maybe they're going to supply graphics chips for the Nintendo GameCube, shown in the entertainment stand.
As the owner of a GameCube I can say that much is accurate. ATI is the provider of the graphics chip that drives the Cube. In fact, if you look on one it has a big ATi sticker on the front.
I for one am hoping for a revision to the Ti line with the new graphics card and a processor bump within the next month. I've got the OK from the General Accounting Office that is my wife to purchase if they do.
Zyg
Dreadnought
Mar 21, 04:57 PM
4JNA, how are you doing? Making any progress?
Verto
Mar 31, 11:38 AM
Thanks for clearing up any uncertainty there.
SilvorX
Oct 10, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by rEd Eye
Yup!
A 800Mhz Powerbook fully loaded with 1Gb of Ram and a 60Gb HD cost's $6,059.00.Add 14.5% sales tax onto that and I am looking at a $6,936.00 Apple portable.That's before Apple care,extra anything and software etc.,in which case,with a nifty extra battery and Applecare for not if,but when it breaks,and .Mac,the grand total Reaches $7,710.09 CANADIAN DOLLARS
Needless to say that this price is out of reach of the average Joe around here.The best part is that your investment is only worth a fraction of that in a year or two,and that Apple considers it acceptable for it to not work 100% as advertised.Almost be wiser to put a down payment on a home and property with that amount of money.
But I wan't one,dammit!:D
yiiiiiikes...dont u wish u lived in alberta lol...with only 7% tax rate...while the rest of canada (or most) has atleast 14%...n there were rumors of the gov changing the gst rate to 10%...good thing theyre not tho...if they were...so long canada lol
Yup!
A 800Mhz Powerbook fully loaded with 1Gb of Ram and a 60Gb HD cost's $6,059.00.Add 14.5% sales tax onto that and I am looking at a $6,936.00 Apple portable.That's before Apple care,extra anything and software etc.,in which case,with a nifty extra battery and Applecare for not if,but when it breaks,and .Mac,the grand total Reaches $7,710.09 CANADIAN DOLLARS
Needless to say that this price is out of reach of the average Joe around here.The best part is that your investment is only worth a fraction of that in a year or two,and that Apple considers it acceptable for it to not work 100% as advertised.Almost be wiser to put a down payment on a home and property with that amount of money.
But I wan't one,dammit!:D
yiiiiiikes...dont u wish u lived in alberta lol...with only 7% tax rate...while the rest of canada (or most) has atleast 14%...n there were rumors of the gov changing the gst rate to 10%...good thing theyre not tho...if they were...so long canada lol
Dreadnought
Aug 30, 03:20 PM
And I just thought I had become the new folding god and all of those points came from me... the truth is too hard! :(
2nyRiggz
Mar 25, 08:09 AM
I'm sure if MS or Nintendo for that matter didn't pay up they would be calling FF a thing of the past as well. It happened to sony and we all know about it but now its on its way back and lets be happy about it.
Bless
Bless
Chaszmyr
Sep 5, 10:48 AM
19'' imacs seem very unplausable, but those two sources are accurate an amazing amount of the time
Chaszmyr
Mar 24, 05:56 AM
No, but bug fixes and stuff are never a bad thing :)
I would just prefer those bug fixes be in 1.1 instead :p
I would just prefer those bug fixes be in 1.1 instead :p
Dreadnought
Aug 12, 06:01 PM
I know! Stanford wasn't happy with the outcome of the WU! :D
trainguy77
Jun 23, 10:02 PM
It would be great if we could also have possibly have a team overtake, and who may overtake our team. In addition, something showing the day-to-day output of the team.
MacBandit
Aug 25, 08:06 PM
What comparrison the GF4MX is the low end slow GF4. The ATI 9700 is the high end of the ATI 9000 series comparable to the GF4Ti. The 9700 is faster by as much as double over the GF4Ti.
mad jew
Apr 19, 09:08 AM
So do these sorts of problems affect all versions of Firefox - including Mac and Linux?
WildCowboy
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Yeah, I'm really hoping that's a joke. I can't imagine a government office giving someone a title like that.
It's no joke. (http://ethnicoffice.utah.gov/about_us/directors.html)
It's no joke. (http://ethnicoffice.utah.gov/about_us/directors.html)
auxplage
Jan 28, 02:33 PM
I tried the Mac Garden link and got there but the download location did not work. Anywhere else that anyone knows about?
iGary
May 26, 10:51 AM
216 - will it ever end?
chmorley
Oct 17, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by teabgs
I'm kinda disapointed that nobdy noticed the PC's in the office...
I wonder what that's all about :(
Doesnt really matter though, since that's from 1996..... What makes you think those are PC's? Macs looked like that back then.
Chris
I'm kinda disapointed that nobdy noticed the PC's in the office...
I wonder what that's all about :(
Doesnt really matter though, since that's from 1996..... What makes you think those are PC's? Macs looked like that back then.
Chris
trainguy77
Dec 23, 09:03 AM
No that does not mean its doing the same thing over and over. There are many parts to 1 protein. As i recall those are worth a lot.
Rower_CPU
Feb 15, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I forgot that airheads can breathe underwater!!
Touch�...but I thought the whole swimming up after eating through the shoes thing was a foregone conclusion.
Guess not. :p
I forgot that airheads can breathe underwater!!
Touch�...but I thought the whole swimming up after eating through the shoes thing was a foregone conclusion.
Guess not. :p
DeSnousa
Apr 2, 01:39 AM
if they do THAT, the beatles can sue them AGAIN...
My exact thoughts when I read the title. Maybe Disney/Pixar can :p
My exact thoughts when I read the title. Maybe Disney/Pixar can :p
Switcher2001
Oct 21, 02:17 AM
Hi. This is my first post here, although I've been reading the forums every day for the past six months or so... ;-) For some reason, I just felt roiled up enough to register as a member and say something about this issue.
I'm really getting frustrated Apple's deceleration of processor speed increases and their tendency, lately, to come out with dreadfully slow applications. I switched to an iMac (Sage) at the beginning of 2001 because I was sick of Microsoft as a company and I was fed up with Windows crashing all the time. At the time, I was happy with the processor speed, and Apple seemed to be keeping up with the Intel, AMD, etc. processors just fine. I also got my iMac because I was looking forward to OS X.
But lately, it's amazing to me how far behind Apple is lagging in processor speed. And what is it with the latest iApps? iCalendar is the slowest application I have ever used on any platform in my life. It nearly choked when I imported three year's worth of events from Palm Desktop. PD zipped along as happy as a honeybee with three years of calendar events (it's ugly compared to iCal, and it doesn't use the iCalendar standard, and it's not a Cocoa app, but at least it's fast). I finally ended up spending about five hours going through all my calendar events from 2000 and 2001 and saving them to their own calendars. Once I archived 2000 and I saw a dramatic speed increase in iCal, but it's still a slow application even with just a year's worth of events to carry.
I just don't understand what in the world could take an application such a long time to perform the simplest tasks. How can Apple afford to make the slowest applications ever at a time when their processors are the slowest in the business? Why did it take Apple over a year to accelerate OS X's Finder so that it didn't take a full three seconds to move from file to file in icon view using the arrow keys? It just boggles my mind.
Believe it or not from the way I'm ranting, I'm an avid Mac fan. I have no desire to return to "my clunky Windows world," as one of the Switchers says. It burns me, though, when I'm using Word X on my 600 MHz iBook with 384 MB RAM and it's three or four times SLOWER than Word 97 ever was on my old Pentium 125 MHz machine with 128 MB RAM! I mean, why bother having all this processor speed and RAM when applications are slower than ever? :confused: I just don't get it. I love it that my Mac hardly ever crashes, though... and it's gorgeous... and intuitive... etcetera... but, IMHO, Apple�and all other software developers�should focus more on application speed than processor speed.
I'm really getting frustrated Apple's deceleration of processor speed increases and their tendency, lately, to come out with dreadfully slow applications. I switched to an iMac (Sage) at the beginning of 2001 because I was sick of Microsoft as a company and I was fed up with Windows crashing all the time. At the time, I was happy with the processor speed, and Apple seemed to be keeping up with the Intel, AMD, etc. processors just fine. I also got my iMac because I was looking forward to OS X.
But lately, it's amazing to me how far behind Apple is lagging in processor speed. And what is it with the latest iApps? iCalendar is the slowest application I have ever used on any platform in my life. It nearly choked when I imported three year's worth of events from Palm Desktop. PD zipped along as happy as a honeybee with three years of calendar events (it's ugly compared to iCal, and it doesn't use the iCalendar standard, and it's not a Cocoa app, but at least it's fast). I finally ended up spending about five hours going through all my calendar events from 2000 and 2001 and saving them to their own calendars. Once I archived 2000 and I saw a dramatic speed increase in iCal, but it's still a slow application even with just a year's worth of events to carry.
I just don't understand what in the world could take an application such a long time to perform the simplest tasks. How can Apple afford to make the slowest applications ever at a time when their processors are the slowest in the business? Why did it take Apple over a year to accelerate OS X's Finder so that it didn't take a full three seconds to move from file to file in icon view using the arrow keys? It just boggles my mind.
Believe it or not from the way I'm ranting, I'm an avid Mac fan. I have no desire to return to "my clunky Windows world," as one of the Switchers says. It burns me, though, when I'm using Word X on my 600 MHz iBook with 384 MB RAM and it's three or four times SLOWER than Word 97 ever was on my old Pentium 125 MHz machine with 128 MB RAM! I mean, why bother having all this processor speed and RAM when applications are slower than ever? :confused: I just don't get it. I love it that my Mac hardly ever crashes, though... and it's gorgeous... and intuitive... etcetera... but, IMHO, Apple�and all other software developers�should focus more on application speed than processor speed.
iMeowbot
Oct 13, 11:38 AM
Here's the Microsoft page with the original report.
http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/200410_office.mspx
[N.B.: This affects both Office v.X and 2004]
Inquirer article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19056) covering the story, much more entertaining than the Sydney morning Herald version anyway =)
For the listed story, there's always bugmenot.com
http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/200410_office.mspx
[N.B.: This affects both Office v.X and 2004]
Inquirer article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19056) covering the story, much more entertaining than the Sydney morning Herald version anyway =)
For the listed story, there's always bugmenot.com
kungfu
Aug 29, 05:50 PM
isn't "p58" the name for the powermac or something??? that's about all i got out of that article except for the fact that they mention 1394b.
kungfu
kungfu
dcv
May 13, 03:29 PM
Thank god we don't have those adverts on the UK site. They're crap! And I agree, it is extremely annoying when a site automatically loads audio/video or those bloody awful flash animations :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment