Leoff
Nov 28, 06:59 AM
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?
Congratulations, you just lost any arguments you wish to make. If Apple monitors are vastly overpriced for what you get, if you don't have any need for something that is superior to a regular consumer model, then why in the hell did you buy one?
vettori
Jun 22, 04:09 PM
Now consider these facts :
- new mac mini with hdmi
- "iSlate" or "Magic Slate" coming (possibily with gyro/accelerometer) ?
- developers of iOS apps are converting apps for iPad resolution 1024x768 and/or retina display resolution 960x460
If Apple releases a new software than runs on the mac mini, can be controlled using the Magic slate and can run iPad or retina display optimized apps, with iOS4 standard apps for music, videos, mail and internet, connected to an hdmi tv....
Now this is something I would like a lot to have at home.
And you ?
- new mac mini with hdmi
- "iSlate" or "Magic Slate" coming (possibily with gyro/accelerometer) ?
- developers of iOS apps are converting apps for iPad resolution 1024x768 and/or retina display resolution 960x460
If Apple releases a new software than runs on the mac mini, can be controlled using the Magic slate and can run iPad or retina display optimized apps, with iOS4 standard apps for music, videos, mail and internet, connected to an hdmi tv....
Now this is something I would like a lot to have at home.
And you ?
roland.g
Aug 29, 11:29 AM
IF they go to a 1.66ghz Core Duo, 512mb RAM, GMA950, 80gb 5400rpm HD, SD, AE, and BT model for $599 I'll get one immediately.
You can update the Core Solo to a SD for $50. They won't give a SD to the low end stock. But $50 upgrade isn't bad.
You can update the Core Solo to a SD for $50. They won't give a SD to the low end stock. But $50 upgrade isn't bad.
lordonuthin
May 3, 12:21 PM
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
jxyama
Mar 19, 05:17 PM
jxyama, I think you have something there... last nite my wife (who is computer ignorant) asks whether I have a MAC or a PC. Turns out her best friend (newbie PC user for about 1 year) has convinced her that MACs aren't as good. My wife or her friend have never even used one but they 'KNOW' they are inferior to MACs. Now if either of them were to have to make a buying decision it's not hard to imagine what they'll walk out the store with.
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
How could any new user have a different opinion unless they happen to know a MAC user. Only 2% use MACs so they're unlikely to be exposed to one, PC users (98%) will bad mouth a MAC, and Apples advertising, while award winning does very little to enlighten people about the product.
i agree with you.
the problem with the current computer market is that it's dominated by two kind of uses, neither of which apple excels at: enterprise and gaming.
for enterprise users, innovation and usability (beyond certain degree) are secondary. what they need is computers to get the job done for as cheap as possible - because computer is purely a commodity tool. as far as corporations are concerned, there is no reason to step away from windows because it has been getting the job done and it is the cheapest options available. now, this is changing slightly recently because of the onslaught of malicious windows virus. some corporations are starting to realize that the cost of hiring windows admin and lost productivity due to these virus are starting to make windows more expensive. because they have absolutely no brand attachment, corporations that deem Macs to be more cost effective overall than windows PCs will have absolutely no problem switching. (however, they will have no problem pursuing other options if something better than Macs come out too.)
because many people work for corporations, them and their families will be most familiar with windows PCs. Macs are seen as some abnormality, and expensive. ("there's only so much a computer can do and windows does it fine, so why bother paying more for Macs?")
what they fail to see (IMO) is that Macs can do a lot more, far more easily. but it will take time for those people to be convinced that computers can really do more than what they've seen windows PCs do and it really is worth more $$$.
gaming - this is tough for apple. in this segment, user base is everything. because it's so technologically driven, R&D money is much better spent on improving the technology rather than adapting them to work on Macs...
hakuryuu
Apr 11, 02:47 AM
I honestly cringe at the thought of driving an automatic at this point. I learned on an auto but i've driven a stick for the last 7 years (much of that in Los Angeles traffic) and when I wasn't in my car I was on my motorcycle (love sequential gearboxes). I like the control I have over the car and even in a car that isn't fast it makes driving more fun as long as the box isn't crap.
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
TMay
Apr 12, 08:50 PM
Pretty sure FCE doesn't support 24fps, which is kinda a problem for film editing, and an increasingly bigger problem for other work as 24fps gets used more. IIRC, it doesn't have stuff like the color scopes or audio mixer either. The main difference is the suite though.
Just read something today to the effect that Peter Jackson is following James Cameron's lead and shooting 48fps on the "Hobbit"; gambling that enough digital theaters will upgrade to 48fps by the time the "film" arrives in a couple of years time. Guess that is the beginning of the end of the "film" look for at least action movies.
Just read something today to the effect that Peter Jackson is following James Cameron's lead and shooting 48fps on the "Hobbit"; gambling that enough digital theaters will upgrade to 48fps by the time the "film" arrives in a couple of years time. Guess that is the beginning of the end of the "film" look for at least action movies.
rasmasyean
Apr 8, 03:43 AM
Well, they don't necessarily need to field troops that shoot rifles. Having a ground force can mean a lot of different things, including spec ops. I think one feasible solution may be to have US troops field artillery. This might be one of those opportunites to test "smart artillery" on those trenches near civilians and hospitals. They might also try to blow up more tanks so they can sell them more refurbished M1 Abrams later. I think smart artillery is more economical than aerial bombing runs to blow up some cheap russian tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
bmw3wags
Oct 1, 07:26 AM
Its been almost a month now how come their aren't more cases now now?
NameUndecided
Apr 3, 12:42 AM
The reason Lion's only 3.7 GB right now is because it's an upgrade only. You can't install Lion on a clean partition right now, only upgrade from Snow Leopard.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
??? My 25gb partition was clean and blank when I installed Lion DP 1 and I think that's the case for most others as well. I'm not sure where you heard that, if I'm understanding you correctly.
bobbleheadbob
Apr 2, 07:38 PM
I saw the commercial debut live during the Butler-VCU game and loved it right away! Awesome job by the :apple: Marketing Group. It captures the essence of the product and the emotional attachment we get with it. Bravo! :D
network23
Jul 19, 04:46 PM
I fully believe the lower desktop numbers are due to people waiting for the Intel-based desktops. The wonderful thing about Macs are that they aren't always in need of updating, so it's not a problem to wait until they are released.
Expect a huge increase in desktop sales the next quarter or two (if indeed the Mac Pro with Intel line appears next month).
Expect a huge increase in desktop sales the next quarter or two (if indeed the Mac Pro with Intel line appears next month).
macgeek18
Feb 21, 07:46 PM
Not concerned with the impending refresh? Or do you plan to return and rebuy post-refresh?
I bought an 08 MacBook Aluminum. So No i'm not concerned or care about the upcoming refresh.
I bought an 08 MacBook Aluminum. So No i'm not concerned or care about the upcoming refresh.
Huntn
Apr 9, 10:25 PM
I don't remember what I learned on. :confused: But I can drive a stick on both sides of the road (U.S./England/Japan). When I married my wife she could not drive a stick and that is all we had, a 1975 Fiat Spyder. We lived on a hill in California. When she first started driving it, she would back out of the driveway and all the way down to the bottom of the hill before taking off back up the hill. She does much better now. :D
kingtj
Mar 24, 01:50 PM
They'll need to do something about the power connectors, though.
The last couple times I decided to go with a re-flashed PC version of a graphics card for my Mac Pro, I had to buy special 6-pin power connectors to go between the card and the motherboard since the PC version assumed you had a different type of power connector to use.
When you consider you often need 2 of these cables, typically priced at upwards of $20 each, that can start to make a re-flashed PC version of a given card look a lot less attractive compared to the official Apple version.
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
The last couple times I decided to go with a re-flashed PC version of a graphics card for my Mac Pro, I had to buy special 6-pin power connectors to go between the card and the motherboard since the PC version assumed you had a different type of power connector to use.
When you consider you often need 2 of these cables, typically priced at upwards of $20 each, that can start to make a re-flashed PC version of a given card look a lot less attractive compared to the official Apple version.
i would love to buy an off the shelf gpu for half the price of a mac branded amd card. please let this be true then i will not sell my 2008 macpro
macidiot
Jul 21, 01:28 AM
No I TOTALLY figured this one out. Its during this period that taxes get paid, either at the end of march or late until Aug. and with businesses this is cheap and easy to do. So people sell stock to pay their taxes and that depresses the market -- especially if they made a lot of money which could have been on stocks thus it is guaranteed to happen.
But Oct. is also the second or third biggest gaining month.
Yes, I have heard these before in many places but I think there are larger money movers that actually create it although I am not sure what they are.
Although Christmas is no doubt BIG, I think corp. hiring and purchasing to start new projects is what rules the January effect, but there should other things I have not thought of.
Certainly with product intro ruled stocks like tech stocks Christmas and the new years creates a big effect.
I think the #1 shifter of market fortunes though is USA Presidents and popular pres. end of 8 years as pres. cause a big down effect. Especially now that we have had good feds for so many years, that hold back on the money supply although the HYPER WW competition created by the internet may actually be the BIGGEST force here.
And most pres. now days are smart enough to restrict the money supply strictly during their first 2 years otherwise all hell can break loose.
Bush didn't need to do this, 911 did it, but the lack of lowing taxes and gradual secret tax hikes by Clinton were VERY BAD for the economy.
The presidential transition and voting problems blew-out the economies back !!!
IMO the President has very little direct effect. Since the President barely affects the economy, there really isn't much he can do to the stock market. Anything he might do in the form of stimulus packages... tax cuts, credits, etc. take years to work it's way into the economy. That said, there can definitely be a long term effect from a president's actions.
The Federal Reserve directly affects both the economy and stock market. They are the ones controlling money supply. Not the President. And they are independent of the White house. Alan Greenspan was chairman of the fed for 3 different presidents. However, the Fed does not care about the stock market per se. The Fed is interested in controlling inflation and the economy, avoiding overheating and softening downturns. Essentially, the Fed tries to "tune" the economy.
The President can not restrict money supply. What you've seen over the past 25 years was basically 3 administrations (Reagan/Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr.) that essentially transitioned during downturns in the business cycle. Coincidence.
And I have no idea what "hyper ww competition from the internet" means.
But Oct. is also the second or third biggest gaining month.
Yes, I have heard these before in many places but I think there are larger money movers that actually create it although I am not sure what they are.
Although Christmas is no doubt BIG, I think corp. hiring and purchasing to start new projects is what rules the January effect, but there should other things I have not thought of.
Certainly with product intro ruled stocks like tech stocks Christmas and the new years creates a big effect.
I think the #1 shifter of market fortunes though is USA Presidents and popular pres. end of 8 years as pres. cause a big down effect. Especially now that we have had good feds for so many years, that hold back on the money supply although the HYPER WW competition created by the internet may actually be the BIGGEST force here.
And most pres. now days are smart enough to restrict the money supply strictly during their first 2 years otherwise all hell can break loose.
Bush didn't need to do this, 911 did it, but the lack of lowing taxes and gradual secret tax hikes by Clinton were VERY BAD for the economy.
The presidential transition and voting problems blew-out the economies back !!!
IMO the President has very little direct effect. Since the President barely affects the economy, there really isn't much he can do to the stock market. Anything he might do in the form of stimulus packages... tax cuts, credits, etc. take years to work it's way into the economy. That said, there can definitely be a long term effect from a president's actions.
The Federal Reserve directly affects both the economy and stock market. They are the ones controlling money supply. Not the President. And they are independent of the White house. Alan Greenspan was chairman of the fed for 3 different presidents. However, the Fed does not care about the stock market per se. The Fed is interested in controlling inflation and the economy, avoiding overheating and softening downturns. Essentially, the Fed tries to "tune" the economy.
The President can not restrict money supply. What you've seen over the past 25 years was basically 3 administrations (Reagan/Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr.) that essentially transitioned during downturns in the business cycle. Coincidence.
And I have no idea what "hyper ww competition from the internet" means.
deputy_doofy
Oct 23, 07:05 AM
Yes!! Thread# 50000000000 regarding the upcoming MBP. I'm ready to buy. Just made a nice, big payment to the credit card, so it's ready, too.
I don't have the same demands as other people for what should be in the new MBP. Yes, I want the C2D, obviously, but if it can't access 4gb of RAM, I won't care. My PB only has 512mb at the moment, so 1gb will be fine with me. :D
I don't have the same demands as other people for what should be in the new MBP. Yes, I want the C2D, obviously, but if it can't access 4gb of RAM, I won't care. My PB only has 512mb at the moment, so 1gb will be fine with me. :D
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:05 PM
I can not believe how long it has taken me to finally bother to register here...And it has taken the release of an iMac to do it.
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
ipodG8TR
Sep 7, 10:10 AM
When will the studios get a clue. I can rent movies almost anywhere for a couple dollars (only $1 at the grocery store vending machine with my debit card). So, why buy?
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
More convenient - I don't think so. It will take a decent amount of time to download.
Better quality - I doubt it. Don't expect much better than iTunes offers now.
twoodcc
Feb 10, 08:27 PM
You need to update to the 6.29 client.
Bigadv are still more ppd but on win side many people are switching to SMP2 because the a3 core is quite fast on 4 cores (8 virtual).
Soon bigadv units are switching to a3 core also. I would then hope that we will not be loosing units due to restart or power loss or network switching as the a3 core is now threaded.
thanks for that info!
well i'm away from my computers for the next 2 months, and it looks like already something is wrong. i've had no points for the last 3 updates, so i either had a power outage or network failure. but my server is still working though.
Bigadv are still more ppd but on win side many people are switching to SMP2 because the a3 core is quite fast on 4 cores (8 virtual).
Soon bigadv units are switching to a3 core also. I would then hope that we will not be loosing units due to restart or power loss or network switching as the a3 core is now threaded.
thanks for that info!
well i'm away from my computers for the next 2 months, and it looks like already something is wrong. i've had no points for the last 3 updates, so i either had a power outage or network failure. but my server is still working though.
jazzbo
Feb 24, 09:42 AM
One small con for diesel is that in cold climates, at the very least you pay a slight premium for winterized diesel, and often you may need to add a de-gelling agent even with "winterized" fuel, or if a cold snap happens before the local dealers switch to winterized. I used to have a VW TDI Beetle and it just shut off one very cold morning in Maine, and had to be hauled to a garage so the fuel line could thaw out. The dealer claimed they made it very clear to me (and everyone) who bought a TDI that they needed to put in the conditioner; this was after commenting on why my engine stopped, "fuel probably gelled, we had 2 others already today." I suggested maybe they needed to emphasize the point a little better to new buyers.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
Granted there is a deal of regular maintenance that car owners should expect, but in speaking with other TDI owners, several in my area had this 'surprise' in their first winter.
I don't know if the cleaner diesel is winterized better or not and/or what the premium for winterized fuel is these days during the colder months.
aiqw9182
Mar 24, 02:38 PM
AMD Fusion is a better CPU because it does true OpenCL in the GPU, not like Intel's alpha OpenCL which runs on the CPU side.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
Fusion is DirectX 11 class. Intel is DirectX 10.1 class.
Uhh, no bro. The CPU and GPU are two separate things, and Sandy Bridge smokes Fusion on the CPU side. If you want to argue OpenCL for all of the zero current day applications it currently has then be my guest and do so. Fusion is DX11? Wow, more vaporware that rarely gets added in modern games due to wanting to be backwards compatible, how exciting!
Once again, run Sandy Bridge and a discrete GPU if you are really looking for performance. There's your OpenCL and DX11 support that you need so badly. It will smoke anything AMD has to offer.
Krizoitz
Mar 21, 08:13 AM
and since Apple is missing the market so bad its sales have sunk to the lowest % in its history. there will come a point that it wont matter how much money is in their bank because no one will be buying the stuff. Look at iJon even he uses a PC for gaming. most people dont have a pc and a Mac so what do they buy? a PC.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
It doesn't matter if they sell to a market where the won't be able to make money and will likely lose money. Apple isn't a commodity PC dealer like Dell, they dont' sell in quantity, they sellin quality. As for gaming, sorry gamers make up a small percentage of the market, and since most games are PC first/PC only it doesn't make sense for them to buy a Mac anyway. Is it getting better? Yes and maybe that will change someday, but that doesn't mean squat right now. I think Apple is doing a fine job. What frustrates me is no matter how good they do for some people its never enough, they seem to want Apple to sell a 9Ghz Quad proccesor G6 with a terabyte of ram and a 200 petabyte harddrive with dual 30" plasma screens for $299. Give me a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment