jav6454
Apr 25, 01:03 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
AutoSpies
Apr 30, 06:22 PM
screen prices are cheap and creative types would eat them up
:):apple::cool:
:):apple::cool:
AidenShaw
Sep 5, 12:19 PM
The TV makes a terrible monitor for any other computer use, and I just don't want the computer in my TV room.
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
For example, the Samsung 46" and 40" LCDs are 1920x1080, with VGA and HDMI input. They are excellent monitors (we use them in some small conference rooms in lieu of projectors).
Phil A.
Aug 23, 07:07 PM
Don't 90% or more of the MP3 players on the market also infringe this patent (including the forthcoming Zune). By making this payout Apple have given Creative the means to fight other companies (such as Microsoft, Sandisk, etc) which could tie them up for years and possibly even delay the launch of Zune. Meanwhile, Apple have their nice license agreement and can continue unabated...
Cheffy Dave
Apr 22, 03:20 PM
You have been pretty much dead on in the past HH so I shall yield to your wisdom. (I just downed another shot of that cheap canadian swill I've been drinking in your name).
never go with swill, always go with Makers Mark:eek:, or better yet Makers Mark "42";):D:cool:
never go with swill, always go with Makers Mark:eek:, or better yet Makers Mark "42";):D:cool:
LJB
Mar 23, 04:51 PM
US Senators (and Congressmen) write the laws of this country. If they want to make this type of information illegal, they are the ones who write the laws so they should do it that way. But as other people noted, there are some states which have laws making DUI checkpoint locations public information.
Bottom line, just because a Senator or two asks Apple to do something does not mean Apple should. They are doing it this way (the easy way) because it would be very difficult to pass as a law and it might not hold up in court.
Bottom line, just because a Senator or two asks Apple to do something does not mean Apple should. They are doing it this way (the easy way) because it would be very difficult to pass as a law and it might not hold up in court.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:56 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
But they have an i7, 13 inch machine. :confused:
:rolleyes:
But they have an i7, 13 inch machine. :confused:
Drag'nGT
Apr 30, 01:42 PM
Okay, so now all I have to do is hope for SATA 3 SSD connections and the prices to drop to i5 @ $1699 and i7 @ $1999. Some REAL good GPUs and more standard ram. :cool:
I hate to say it but I'll keep holding off if the interface connections don't start jumping up in spec. It's retarded to see Thunderbolt and no SATA 3 or USB 3. It will a (re)selling point later on when you're looking to sell it off for the next new one.
I hate to say it but I'll keep holding off if the interface connections don't start jumping up in spec. It's retarded to see Thunderbolt and no SATA 3 or USB 3. It will a (re)selling point later on when you're looking to sell it off for the next new one.
dime21
Apr 15, 03:42 PM
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Of course, what did you expect from an interface designed for keyboards, joysticks, and mice?
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
Of course, what did you expect from an interface designed for keyboards, joysticks, and mice?
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
Of course USB also operates in slow horrible PIO mode, meaning it has to run everything through the host CPU. PATA, SATA, SCSI, Firewire, and Thunderbolt all operate in DMA mode, bypassing the host CPU for much much faster transfers.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Coloring Pages Of Easter
Coloring Pages Of Easter
unny face coloring page
print this coloring page for
easter-unnies
easter bunny coloring
print this coloring page for
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 27, 09:10 AM
I'm a Green Peace supporter, but with Bush in the Whitehouse, don't they have bigger fish to fry?
cult hero
Mar 22, 03:03 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.
However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
Philberttheduck
Sep 4, 09:22 PM
Rumors are rampant, but they do bring up a good point, as you do here. Who would want to watch a movie on an iPod? (Well, actually, I have and I do, but that's beside the point.)
LOLLLLLLL Can we just say quote of the year right there? Honestly got me lol. Props to you.
I hope to hell that Apple releases a media server (Tivo on steroids sounds right) with all the necessary inputs and outputs. Honestly, that would justify me getting my parents to get another mac in the household. :-)
But if this new product turns out to be a streaming player, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be MUCH more happy if they released a 80+GB (preferably 120) for 450 bucks 4.5" WS. Streaming portable video player is kinda unnecessary because, like many of you have mentioned before, if you can watch it on your 20" LCD screen why settle for 3-4"? Only time I use streaming music on my PSP is taking a crap or shower. The PSP isn't really loud but I turn off my fan thing and it's more than adequate (I'm not expecting hi-def surround sound while I sing to my favorite GN'R song).
Hell, throw in the idea of an iPhone. Very unlikely but if they release the movie store they better release that full screen iPod. I'm waiting Apple...
iToilet has the VoiceOver option available to congratulate you when your crap falls in. Or there's some script that plays a clip/song when you successfully flush the toilet without it getting clogged. OK i'm done.
LOLLLLLLL Can we just say quote of the year right there? Honestly got me lol. Props to you.
I hope to hell that Apple releases a media server (Tivo on steroids sounds right) with all the necessary inputs and outputs. Honestly, that would justify me getting my parents to get another mac in the household. :-)
But if this new product turns out to be a streaming player, I wouldn't be happy. I'd be MUCH more happy if they released a 80+GB (preferably 120) for 450 bucks 4.5" WS. Streaming portable video player is kinda unnecessary because, like many of you have mentioned before, if you can watch it on your 20" LCD screen why settle for 3-4"? Only time I use streaming music on my PSP is taking a crap or shower. The PSP isn't really loud but I turn off my fan thing and it's more than adequate (I'm not expecting hi-def surround sound while I sing to my favorite GN'R song).
Hell, throw in the idea of an iPhone. Very unlikely but if they release the movie store they better release that full screen iPod. I'm waiting Apple...
iToilet has the VoiceOver option available to congratulate you when your crap falls in. Or there's some script that plays a clip/song when you successfully flush the toilet without it getting clogged. OK i'm done.
dmelgar
Mar 22, 01:56 PM
What about the Mini?
aloshka
Mar 29, 01:01 PM
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
Actually there is still annoyances with that. While you can run two instances of Excel they still use a weird MDI interface if you are just double clicking to open files. A nightmare if you have dual monitors, and still not fixed in Office 2010.
Actually there is still annoyances with that. While you can run two instances of Excel they still use a weird MDI interface if you are just double clicking to open files. A nightmare if you have dual monitors, and still not fixed in Office 2010.
kgtenacious
May 3, 05:43 PM
So the display input is not backwards compatible? Currently, I use an Atlona AT-HD620 to connect a high def DirecTV hdmi input into my 2010 27" iMac, for watching tv.
I won't be able to do that with the new 2011 27" iMac? :eek:
I won't be able to do that with the new 2011 27" iMac? :eek:
TheNightPhoenix
Sep 12, 06:37 PM
Please explain exactly how from where you did that. I am still trying with handbrake and EyeTV. The EyeTV2 export is supposed to be connected to the QuickTime but the iPod default is not H.264 640x480 in the EyetV2 Export windows.
just before i jump between covers.... a rip from handbrake in 100% quality i had from before, DV Pal footage, 720p and 1080i footage all opened in quicktime and just gone to export for iPod all worked fine.
Coloring Pages Of Easter
easter-unny-with-easte-egg
just before i jump between covers.... a rip from handbrake in 100% quality i had from before, DV Pal footage, 720p and 1080i footage all opened in quicktime and just gone to export for iPod all worked fine.
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 01:44 PM
LONDON,why would they do it in London? obviously so that tv shows and films to be made availble to all of europe except for France. Its so simple. I cant wait. And films in USA of course. Thats whats gonna happen. Its soooo obvious.
Come on top gear on itunes.
Come on top gear on itunes.
asphalt-proof
Sep 5, 01:10 PM
All I know is, I will be buying whatever it is they have for sale.
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
jazzkids
Mar 23, 05:57 PM
Not to mention, operating a phone while driving is becoming illegal in most states due to distracted driving. I figure there would be a bunch of drunk people using this app while driving drunk? Geez.
I got an idea...what about an app that tells ME where the drunk drivers are so I can stay away from THEM?
I got an idea...what about an app that tells ME where the drunk drivers are so I can stay away from THEM?
mmcc
Apr 22, 08:47 AM
when ur at ur home you'd be connected to wifi so usage wouldn't be a problem. i don't know why anyone pays for the $15/month plan that's a complete ripoff to begin with.
My wife and I both opted for the 200MB plan because our usage over the previous year never exceeded that amount (and often never got close) even while on vacation and using Maps. Therefore paying twice that, or more, for unlimited usage is/was a waste of $. For two iPhones that saved $360/yr which is substantial for us.
If the Apple service works like DropBox to sync all my music on all my iTunes/iPod devices AND is only active over WiFi, then I will probably make use of the service since it would essentially be the wireless syncing for which many have been asking.
As an on-the-go music stream over cell service it is useless to me.
My wife and I both opted for the 200MB plan because our usage over the previous year never exceeded that amount (and often never got close) even while on vacation and using Maps. Therefore paying twice that, or more, for unlimited usage is/was a waste of $. For two iPhones that saved $360/yr which is substantial for us.
If the Apple service works like DropBox to sync all my music on all my iTunes/iPod devices AND is only active over WiFi, then I will probably make use of the service since it would essentially be the wireless syncing for which many have been asking.
As an on-the-go music stream over cell service it is useless to me.
sam10685
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
dude... the 30 gig one shoulda be bumped to atleast 40 or 50... if not more.
zap2
Apr 11, 03:22 AM
All those monthly bills add up. I'm glad I never bought an iPhone, for example, when they first came out. I've saved a ton of money not buying the required data plan that goes comes with it. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like our priorities are all wrong and I agree.
I don't see what your point is...how does that respond to the person you quoted? He was saying people made bad choice due to keep oil and you say "I'm glad I didn't get an iPhone right away"
The price of gas living in suburbia is much more of a drain on a household then an extra 20 dollars for iPhone data. 20 bucks is nothing in a month of gas. And for the amount of usage iPhones often get(like in my case) it is well worth the money for many people.
Don't criticize people for making different choices then yourself
I don't see what your point is...how does that respond to the person you quoted? He was saying people made bad choice due to keep oil and you say "I'm glad I didn't get an iPhone right away"
The price of gas living in suburbia is much more of a drain on a household then an extra 20 dollars for iPhone data. 20 bucks is nothing in a month of gas. And for the amount of usage iPhones often get(like in my case) it is well worth the money for many people.
Don't criticize people for making different choices then yourself
chasemac
Aug 24, 02:27 AM
What many people fail to realize it Creative had some accessories that have adapters that work with the Shuffle and the ipod however this alows them to actually put the "made for ipod" tag on it.
What?:)
What?:)
No comments:
Post a Comment