matthewroth
Sep 1, 04:41 AM
Still, I would take OS X over XP any day, but it sure would be good news to me to hear a fully revamped Finder with all these slowdowns ironed out.
Amen to that! :D
Have to admit though, they did take all the names and addresses of the Dev's that got the Beta. they would be able to identify who has an illigal copy VERY easily. the fact remains though that i live in the UK, are they realy going to scower the globe for every illigal beta!
Amen to that! :D
Have to admit though, they did take all the names and addresses of the Dev's that got the Beta. they would be able to identify who has an illigal copy VERY easily. the fact remains though that i live in the UK, are they realy going to scower the globe for every illigal beta!
Mattsasa
Apr 5, 11:23 AM
So Counsumerreports publishes that they can't recommend the iPhone 4 due to antenna. Then they later realized that they were dumb asses and the iPhone antenna issue is a non-issue. Now they can't just change their mind, that would make them look like an idiot, so they stayed stubborn saying the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue, because they were too stubborn to admit they were wrong.
Now the iPad is out they are trying to prove to the media that they are not being biased against apple.
However, the iPad 2 is the best tablet. That is just a no-brained
Now the iPad is out they are trying to prove to the media that they are not being biased against apple.
However, the iPad 2 is the best tablet. That is just a no-brained
Tomorrow
Mar 30, 08:28 PM
Found - and purchased - some for $3.48 this afternoon.
Eduardo1971
Mar 25, 09:24 AM
Before all you Apple fannies disagree with this; just remember Apple is trying to sue everyone else too.
It's all ridiculous.
Amen. Some people here act like Kodak has no right to sue. Egads! Apple does it all the time also.
It's all ridiculous.
Amen. Some people here act like Kodak has no right to sue. Egads! Apple does it all the time also.
more...
katie ta achoo
Sep 13, 10:32 AM
I know -- just a few minutes with them and they'll have you in stitches.
:) :)
I'm so glad everyone is being so cheery, to lighten the mood of general anaesthesia anxiousness. (wow! I spelled it right, without opening dictionary.app!)
I had a bad experience with it though. My Anesthesiologist was a WACKO. He pushed in the needle too quickly, and injected it wayyyy too quickly. My arm was frozen, yet on fire at the same time. It didn't help that HE WAS LEANING ON IT! So, my arm was frozen/burning, and then when he got off my arm, I immediately got a really bad headache, and started to have palpitations. (I think being on my arm unintentional, his belly just kind of landed there. I couldn't get it off because both of my arms were tied down. That didn't stop it from being annoying, though!)
....but I'm 100% certain he's been fired now (you DON'T freak me out that bad and get away with it. Even though I was 13 when I had my surgery, I still knew who to complain to.. MUAHAHAHA)
SO, You'll have a pretty good time with it.
the 2nd time I went down, the doctor was AWESOME. (I guess that's the diff. between the urology dept. and the cardiology dept. at Texas Children's) She didn't lean on my arm, and injected it slowly, so I went to sleep gradually, not IMMEDIATELY with a headache.
...I did wake up 10 minutes before it was done, though. I could see, but I couldn't say anything. I'm glad that it was just tubes, and no scalpels!
Good luck iGary! Just remember to email everyone a memo, a'la Steve.
PS: I'm sending this from my hospital bed using my 17-inch PowerBook and an Airport Express. (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/jobsmemo.html)
I hope you get well soon!!
:) :)
I'm so glad everyone is being so cheery, to lighten the mood of general anaesthesia anxiousness. (wow! I spelled it right, without opening dictionary.app!)
I had a bad experience with it though. My Anesthesiologist was a WACKO. He pushed in the needle too quickly, and injected it wayyyy too quickly. My arm was frozen, yet on fire at the same time. It didn't help that HE WAS LEANING ON IT! So, my arm was frozen/burning, and then when he got off my arm, I immediately got a really bad headache, and started to have palpitations. (I think being on my arm unintentional, his belly just kind of landed there. I couldn't get it off because both of my arms were tied down. That didn't stop it from being annoying, though!)
....but I'm 100% certain he's been fired now (you DON'T freak me out that bad and get away with it. Even though I was 13 when I had my surgery, I still knew who to complain to.. MUAHAHAHA)
SO, You'll have a pretty good time with it.
the 2nd time I went down, the doctor was AWESOME. (I guess that's the diff. between the urology dept. and the cardiology dept. at Texas Children's) She didn't lean on my arm, and injected it slowly, so I went to sleep gradually, not IMMEDIATELY with a headache.
...I did wake up 10 minutes before it was done, though. I could see, but I couldn't say anything. I'm glad that it was just tubes, and no scalpels!
Good luck iGary! Just remember to email everyone a memo, a'la Steve.
PS: I'm sending this from my hospital bed using my 17-inch PowerBook and an Airport Express. (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/jobsmemo.html)
I hope you get well soon!!
simsaladimbamba
Apr 22, 05:38 PM
1. Real men ride Harleys.
And Mac users consider themselves as computer savy, LOL! They prefer a simple OS that a monkey could use. Now that's savy.
Opposed to all the people deleting items from their Docks and Sidebar?
Or the people not able to even use Windows, which is more complicated?
And what does "computer savvy" mean?
And Mac users consider themselves as computer savy, LOL! They prefer a simple OS that a monkey could use. Now that's savy.
Opposed to all the people deleting items from their Docks and Sidebar?
Or the people not able to even use Windows, which is more complicated?
And what does "computer savvy" mean?
more...
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
bniu
Apr 16, 03:31 PM
I still prefer the nation's fastest network (AT&T) over the most reliable (VZW) any day. Not to mention my GSM 32GB iPad 1 can be used internationally as well. Besides, in my neck of the woods, AT&T service has been very reliable for data consumption. No complaints here.
as an ATT iPhone 4 user, I figured why not get the verizon iPad and get the best of both worlds? If I want the nation's fastest network in the places that it actually has reception, it's easy to tether the iPhone to the iPad via personal hotspot. If there's no ATT coverage (in my school), then verizon iPad saves the day with access to the most reliable network.
as an ATT iPhone 4 user, I figured why not get the verizon iPad and get the best of both worlds? If I want the nation's fastest network in the places that it actually has reception, it's easy to tether the iPhone to the iPad via personal hotspot. If there's no ATT coverage (in my school), then verizon iPad saves the day with access to the most reliable network.
more...
Zephi
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
I hate those. Or when I hear people talking about it. How do they expect that to do anything?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
currentinterest
Apr 19, 11:27 AM
I have been using the new four finger gestures enabled with 4.3.x and find them to be a great in combination with the current multitasking implementation. I think what is depicted is either a jail broken add-on, or an early tested and rejected interface.
more...
SciFrog
Apr 16, 08:14 AM
Every little bit helps. But what we really need is people with 8 cores plus (virtual, desktop machine) running bigadv, at least until faster GPU and/or a GPU client for mac.
Telecacher
Aug 19, 05:12 PM
Wasn't working earlier, but just started working here in Los Angeles.
more...
fredr500
Apr 6, 08:08 AM
I felt the same way as Woz when the iPad was first announced. A great product for my wife but not for me, I need my macbook.
Then I was assigned to develop iPad apps and got one. My wife still doesn't have one, but I won't leave home without mine. I can remote into my home or work mac when needed, have all my music and video and docs with me always.
Sure, I won't write code on it but for pretty much everything else this is it. Basically it is a window into the world, erasable paper, portable media.
I've also got a blackberry, a windows phone, a Galaxy, a Dell Streak and a Xoom on my desk right now (and a Playbook on the way) and just can't understand how they all missed the mark when Apple has been showing them the way for the past year.
I've become a believer in the iPad.
Then I was assigned to develop iPad apps and got one. My wife still doesn't have one, but I won't leave home without mine. I can remote into my home or work mac when needed, have all my music and video and docs with me always.
Sure, I won't write code on it but for pretty much everything else this is it. Basically it is a window into the world, erasable paper, portable media.
I've also got a blackberry, a windows phone, a Galaxy, a Dell Streak and a Xoom on my desk right now (and a Playbook on the way) and just can't understand how they all missed the mark when Apple has been showing them the way for the past year.
I've become a believer in the iPad.
Matthew Yohe
Nov 11, 02:26 AM
"iPod-o"
more...
ghostface147
Apr 12, 01:42 PM
Ugh, outlook syncing to Exchange 2010 is still slow. Emails hit my iPhone instantly, as well as Outlook 2010. As for the Outlook it takes up to 30 seconds. Maybe they need to improve EWS???
Don't panic
Apr 27, 03:43 PM
i think he would be a horrible president.
luckily he has no chances.
luckily he has no chances.
more...
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:45 PM
nore
efoto
Sep 17, 04:39 PM
I know you're a woman and all, but how is coming back and expressing interest "borderline creepy?" I only think it's creepy that he came back the 3rd time at around the same time, on the 3rd consecutive week, knowing that she was working. The 2nd time seems okay. In fact, the 3rd time would have been ok as well..........if she was quite interested. ;)
To my own defense, the three times were not all consecutive, and the actual times of visit were all different, however they were all on a Saturday. I couldn't help my times for a while because I go to school on the east side of the state, and only went to the mall/Apple Store on weekends when I went home to see my friends/family. The first two were back-back weekends when I had stuff happening in town which brought me home, then a one week gap I stayed at school, then home again because my friend wanted to hangout and needed help shopping (because he has zero sense of fashion).
I still don't get how everyone is saying that a glance of eye-contact is "expressing interest", it happens all the time in a lot of different places, one can hardly help it.
devilot76 - But when you show up two more times and you seem to express interest-- that is borderline creepy
CanadaRAM - When you came back later and initated eye contact, it was on your terms, and that changed the whole dynamic, and took the control of the interaction out of her hands and into yours.
Lacero - Trying to, and successfully making eye contact on the 2nd and 3rd visit would have freaked me out. And I'm a guy! Making eye contact after having purchased something probably would have been the more appropriate action to take. Ah well...
Alright, so basically if I go in there, I am going to wear dark glasses and not allow her to see me, like stoop low and hide behind merchandise or something....this is getting difficult, all just to shop!
To my own defense, the three times were not all consecutive, and the actual times of visit were all different, however they were all on a Saturday. I couldn't help my times for a while because I go to school on the east side of the state, and only went to the mall/Apple Store on weekends when I went home to see my friends/family. The first two were back-back weekends when I had stuff happening in town which brought me home, then a one week gap I stayed at school, then home again because my friend wanted to hangout and needed help shopping (because he has zero sense of fashion).
I still don't get how everyone is saying that a glance of eye-contact is "expressing interest", it happens all the time in a lot of different places, one can hardly help it.
devilot76 - But when you show up two more times and you seem to express interest-- that is borderline creepy
CanadaRAM - When you came back later and initated eye contact, it was on your terms, and that changed the whole dynamic, and took the control of the interaction out of her hands and into yours.
Lacero - Trying to, and successfully making eye contact on the 2nd and 3rd visit would have freaked me out. And I'm a guy! Making eye contact after having purchased something probably would have been the more appropriate action to take. Ah well...
Alright, so basically if I go in there, I am going to wear dark glasses and not allow her to see me, like stoop low and hide behind merchandise or something....this is getting difficult, all just to shop!
TheSlush
Feb 18, 01:28 PM
Can't help thinking that if Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs could split the difference on their weight, they'd both be better off. :D
This is getting silly, maybe he was at the cancer center for a checkup and that's it
Yes, this is perfectly possible.
This is getting silly, maybe he was at the cancer center for a checkup and that's it
Yes, this is perfectly possible.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 04:39 AM
NYC and San Francisco have toyed with the ideas but so far nothing has come of it. It takes a strong political will to make it happen I'm sure. In the end though, I can hardly see any other viable options for large cities.
The only city I've ever been to which isn't congested is Singapore - and they have excellent public transport, very wide roads, very high taxes on car ownership (this gives some idea (http://www.expatsingapore.com/content/view/1161)) and road pricing in the centre.
The only city I've ever been to which isn't congested is Singapore - and they have excellent public transport, very wide roads, very high taxes on car ownership (this gives some idea (http://www.expatsingapore.com/content/view/1161)) and road pricing in the centre.
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
ccharlton
Mar 22, 11:07 PM
No, they just need Internet access.
I am limited on the gear I have at my disposal. Current setup is a Motorola DOCSIS 3.0 Cable Modem -> SonicWall TZ-100. From there I have a AirPort Extreme that is bridged providing wireless and a AirPort Express extending that. I *think* I can do some sort of VLAN setup from the SonicWall. Then use the AirPort Express as a guest AP.
I'm mainly a systems guy so while I won't shy away from doing some networking here and there but i'm not very familiar with how VLANs are configured. It is something I will look into though so thank you.
I'd love to go wired but in this case it's simply not possible.
I am limited on the gear I have at my disposal. Current setup is a Motorola DOCSIS 3.0 Cable Modem -> SonicWall TZ-100. From there I have a AirPort Extreme that is bridged providing wireless and a AirPort Express extending that. I *think* I can do some sort of VLAN setup from the SonicWall. Then use the AirPort Express as a guest AP.
I'm mainly a systems guy so while I won't shy away from doing some networking here and there but i'm not very familiar with how VLANs are configured. It is something I will look into though so thank you.
I'd love to go wired but in this case it's simply not possible.
teerexx52
Mar 24, 07:48 PM
Is everyone keeping these, selling them, a spare one for their mother-in-law?
Blue Velvet
Oct 26, 12:20 PM
What's on the Tshirts? Special Leopard ones?