MagnusVonMagnum
May 4, 02:39 PM
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread.
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
Chris Paul
Chris Paul
Chris Paul dunks on Dwight
Chris Paul emerged from a
chris paul dunks on dwight
over Chris+paul+dunks+over
Walton gives Chris Paul some
point guard Chris Paul,
Chris Paul throwing down a
Chris Paul in the finals,
Paul#39;s Hornets have lost two
Hornets guard Chris Paul
chris paul,chris paul hot
know that Chris Paul and
chris paul1 Chris Paul Is
dunk Bryant chris paul
by John. Yao tries to defend
dunk contest; Chris Paul
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:50 PM
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
yg17
Mar 26, 09:27 AM
And all this coming from the organization who protects a bunch of child rapists. Why are people taking them seriously anymore?
awmazz
Mar 14, 11:34 AM
Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.
Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..
Edit - The NYT article appears to contradict this, saying the water is being pumped in to cover the rods:
The Kyodo news agency reported that the damaged fuel rods at the third reactor had been temporarily exposed, increasing the risk of overheating. Sea water was being channeled into the reactor to cover the rods, Kyodo reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
The key phrase is 'passed through'. So sailing through it. How long did that take, assume 10 minutes? So a month's exposure in just 10 minutes. If they remained stationary for a full day that equates to how many future sailors' babies born with no legs or whatnot? (See there? I'm not talking about deaths.) Quick arithmetic = 6 months backrgound radiation per hour = lookie there a nice divisible number, 12 years worth per day.
So living in that house of yours in your example. Extrapolate that out. 12 years of background exposure per day for a whole year = 4,380 YEARS worth of normal background exposure per annum. How many deformed babies is that *not* to worry about in future years? Seriously, are you telling us all here that you would have your pregnant wife remain exposed to this sort of 'flying on a plane' level of radiation? That you would be happy to have your pregnant wife (if she was) remain within 100 kilomtres of Fukishima for any length of time based on current circumstances?
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is.
w0by
Aug 23, 12:47 PM
Eh, I just blame AT&T for having the iPhone and not fixing their issues. I pay my ** $120 ** phone bill every month for my iPhone, and I don't even have unlimited calling/texting, so therefore AT&T needs to fix their crap.
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 01:10 PM
That's why I'm ripping my DVDs in H.264/AAC instead of the ever-popular DivX/Xvid or any other AVI/Quicktime nightmare. Too many CODECs.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
Hmmm, that makes me wonder if iTunes in a later version will be able to rip DVD's as well as Cd's.
portishead
Apr 12, 11:02 PM
Seems logical that the suite can remain separate applications-- or better yet-- the new FCPX supports more extensive plugins so that you don't have the issues of round tripping, and you can use Magic bullet or whoever wants to make a grading app inside of FCPX.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
Likely this is the kind of thing that will be announced in more detail at WWDC when Apple is able to give developers the tools and training they need to plug into the new architecture.
Exactly.
mattbatt
Oct 31, 02:08 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
Yah, I'm in the same boat BUT I still have my dual G5 2.0 from June '03. You must do a lot of intense processing! Mine still runs great, works fine for me (graphic designer by profession, FCP editor + 3D rendering for fun in Strata CX 4.2). Honestly, FCP could be faster, but I think it is mainly because I am not running a raid and I only have 1.5 GB RAM.
First of all, I think I qualify for some medium to hard data crunching and I can vouch that my dual 2.0 is still a great workhorse. I do plan on waiting for the 8 cores to upgrade so I can be ontop again, (it felt good to have the fastest mac for a while!!!) I also didn't think the Mac Pro was worth the money for me because the PPC software slowdown (for real world tests in CS2, I was running around the same speed). I am also very ready for CS3. I just figure I've waited this long, why not wait a little more . . . though trying to get any $$ for my G5 is going to be hard.
In the 6 pages of threads I read so far, I honestly can say that the 8 cores are going to be awesome, though I hope they offer a 3Ghz model. Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9) showed that even the Quad Mac Pro was beat at daily office crunching by the Intel Core 2 Extreme. Ofcourse for multithread, the quad wins but it does show that Ghz still plays a significant role in overal performance, like we all know.
One comment about the FSB: the more truly 64 bit we go, especially with leopard, the more taxed the FSB will become (by pulling gobs of memory at 64 bit addresses). We really haven't done this yet, but I heard computers could actually go slower because of this.
SO, I'm banking on the 8 cores having a faster bus and *wish*wish* being able to support PC graphic cards in crossfire nativly without having to flash the rom . . . you do know, Apple was the first to offer dual graphic cards years ago . . .in a crossfire like fashion? Let's get that back with another 16 lane slot:)
Thomas2006
Oct 14, 10:52 AM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
Icekill
Apr 7, 04:44 AM
Really interesting thread for me, as i'm a "soon to be" switcher.
I ordered today a Macbook Pro from amazon.co.uk. They offer an 8% discount and i had also a 250€ gift coupon there, so i got it for around 1750€, 400€ less than in the Apple store. Probably will use that money saved to buy an SSD once it's more clear which ones will be fully supported and if it's worth it to buy the newer SATA ones or just go with old ones like Vertex II, etc.
It should arrive at my home in Spain on Monday/Tuesday and i'm so excited reading all that i can about Mac OS X.
I have been working with Msdos/Windows PCs for 20 years and in the past 5 years also with linux (mainly for work, admin web servers by command line). So i guess it's going to be an step learning curve at first, but it has me excited, not worried at all.
I have always been curious about mac, and tired of being told all the time by friends in my same biz sector (web design/online marketing) how much their productivity increased after switching to mac. So i decided to try it myself too.
Most if not all the software i use daily have Mac versions, so i shouldn't have issues with that (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome, Thunderbird, Putty, Ultraedit, Filezilla, Trillian, MSOffice, ssh client).
I also play games from time to time, but for that i'll use Bootcamp with Windows 7.
For work i'll plug the macbook pro into my current 24" monitor, and i have also wireless Logitech mouse and keyboard, but i'm thinking about buying Mac ones to have a similar keyboard layout and fingers gestures than i will in the macbook pro.
My main questions are:
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
I ordered today a Macbook Pro from amazon.co.uk. They offer an 8% discount and i had also a 250€ gift coupon there, so i got it for around 1750€, 400€ less than in the Apple store. Probably will use that money saved to buy an SSD once it's more clear which ones will be fully supported and if it's worth it to buy the newer SATA ones or just go with old ones like Vertex II, etc.
It should arrive at my home in Spain on Monday/Tuesday and i'm so excited reading all that i can about Mac OS X.
I have been working with Msdos/Windows PCs for 20 years and in the past 5 years also with linux (mainly for work, admin web servers by command line). So i guess it's going to be an step learning curve at first, but it has me excited, not worried at all.
I have always been curious about mac, and tired of being told all the time by friends in my same biz sector (web design/online marketing) how much their productivity increased after switching to mac. So i decided to try it myself too.
Most if not all the software i use daily have Mac versions, so i shouldn't have issues with that (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Firefox/Chrome, Thunderbird, Putty, Ultraedit, Filezilla, Trillian, MSOffice, ssh client).
I also play games from time to time, but for that i'll use Bootcamp with Windows 7.
For work i'll plug the macbook pro into my current 24" monitor, and i have also wireless Logitech mouse and keyboard, but i'm thinking about buying Mac ones to have a similar keyboard layout and fingers gestures than i will in the macbook pro.
My main questions are:
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
mi5moav
Jul 12, 07:29 AM
Hmmm, I hope they change the moniker XEON just brings up old conotations. Though I hope the Xserve waits for Kentsfield or at least for SOSSA MAN.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 06:26 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?Revised semantic perfection:Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.How do you know this for a fact? :confused:I don't. But since they ship in November, I imagine Apple will roll them into the line in December since it's simply a matter of installing a different pair of processors into the same motherboard without even a firmware update. I could be wrong. Went back to the original post and revised it.
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?Revised semantic perfection:Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.How do you know this for a fact? :confused:I don't. But since they ship in November, I imagine Apple will roll them into the line in December since it's simply a matter of installing a different pair of processors into the same motherboard without even a firmware update. I could be wrong. Went back to the original post and revised it.
Compile 'em all
Oct 7, 11:09 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
tristan
Jul 12, 06:46 AM
Spooky - I predicted this. Me and everyone else except a couple naysayers. I only buy laptops though, so I'm not really the target market. But I think this will be on every graphic designers desk by Xmas. Go Apple and Intel!
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 11:34 AM
I am inland of two, on the shores of Lake Ontario, one East one West, both at ~20 miles.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
goobot
Apr 20, 06:08 PM
did anyone ask anything about hspa+?
alex_ant
Oct 12, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
IMO, not much. A couple things would be the ability to do all of those a bit faster, but that only makes a difference if you're being held back by your Mac at the moment.
2 points: 1) I think the computing industry has historically been all about the trickle-down effect, where the highest of high tech starts at the very top - the high-end workstations, the mainframes, etc. - and trickles down into low-end workstations/servers, then desktops, then consumer electronics. This could be seen as a technological entropy of sorts, and if you look at it as a hierarchy, the PC (hardware wise) is closer to the root (top level) of that hierarchy at the moment. What that means is that it's closer to being the latest & greatest than the Mac is, which puts it in a position whereby its relative speed advantages are self-perpetuating, in that being closer to the source of the newest, best technology, it has a chance to incorporate that technology before the Mac does, thus raising itself up on the hierarchy yet further. This explains why PCs have been eating into the specialty markets of SGI and Sun (and Apple) and show no signs of stopping. The Mac is a fantastic platform, but it has some formidable competition that is driven by the pure force of the capitalist marketplace, and when you look at it that way, you realize how amazing it is that it has held on all this time.
2) Software is always getting more featureful and less efficient. (With a few exceptions, like the way the performance of OS X has improved between the public beta and Jaguar.) The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect. We do pro-quality video editing on consumer-class machines, our resolutions and color depths are higher, our digital cameras take higher-resolution photos, our audio & video is encoded with more processor-intensive compression codecs, and hell, our email client has a little tray that slides out! (Imagine animation like that on a ca. 1997 computer running a ca. 1997 OS!) A Mac will always be able to check e-mail, but so will a Performa or a 486. But I don't know how many people Performas and 486s appeal to. Probably not many... you tell me why. :)
Alex
