ritmomundo
Mar 18, 03:37 PM
Thats some pretty narrow minded thinking there buddy. I'm just posting about some harassment I've been experiencing because of the phone I've purchased and was wondering if other iPhone owners have experienced it, and by judging from the responses a lot have. I already feel great about my purchase, and I haven't been here long enough to know if the users are fanboys. Judging from the responses I'd say these guys seem pretty fair. Pretty judgemental and silly post in my opinion.
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
iPhone users want to believe they've got the best thing out there, so sometimes you could misinterpret comments or even compliments as "harassment." If people were really jealous of iPhone users, what is stopping them from buying an iPhone? Its not like it costs more, or something only select VIPs are privy to. In fact, many android phones cost more than the iPhone. Most people buy based on their needs (and android phones do offer a lot of features that the iphone doesnt). Some people (including some iphone owners I know) buy just to follow the crowd.
Based on your posts in this thread, and the fact that you think people are really jealous of your iphone, yeah, I'd say you're an Apple fanboy.
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
iPhone users want to believe they've got the best thing out there, so sometimes you could misinterpret comments or even compliments as "harassment." If people were really jealous of iPhone users, what is stopping them from buying an iPhone? Its not like it costs more, or something only select VIPs are privy to. In fact, many android phones cost more than the iPhone. Most people buy based on their needs (and android phones do offer a lot of features that the iphone doesnt). Some people (including some iphone owners I know) buy just to follow the crowd.
Based on your posts in this thread, and the fact that you think people are really jealous of your iphone, yeah, I'd say you're an Apple fanboy.
takao
Sep 8, 12:13 PM
oh no please not a US version of Xavier Naidoo, a german ultra-whiny-sounding guy rapping about god etc. deserving to be made a head shorter... seriously ... he sounds so whiny you want to kill him just to make him stop
that aside everybody knows that Jesus is ***** Metal ;) (http://www.thinkgeek.com/pennyarcade/swag/6fc1/)
that aside everybody knows that Jesus is ***** Metal ;) (http://www.thinkgeek.com/pennyarcade/swag/6fc1/)
dubels
Apr 11, 07:35 PM
Sharks playoff tickets against the Kings 4/16
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
MacBoobsPro
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
Tremendously Tremendous!
more...
JML42691
Dec 13, 10:42 AM
Dont underestimate the power of marketing. They might have this LTE/CDMA combo where the LTE is not all that functional but is there only for the publicity. Think about the splash of the FIRST 4G iPhone!
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
Preclaro_tipo
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
more...
Preclaro_tipo
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
Surely
Apr 5, 05:36 PM
Wait....does the app have ads?
Someone let me know if there's a paid ad-free version........
Someone let me know if there's a paid ad-free version........
more...
kobyh15
May 4, 12:37 AM
Apple marketing at its best. Makes me want one really bad.
JackSYi
Oct 4, 02:14 PM
Thank god. My first MWSF (been saving up for it), with the primary reason being: Steve Jobs.
more...
steve_hill4
Oct 3, 01:14 PM
I think Macbook Pros will be updated at MWSF. Also, doubt the true video iPod will be out by then... all the designs being thrown around look too high-tech for now, and issues with scratches on the touch screen will have to be taken care of as well. I'd say more like Holiday 2007 for that~
If it takes that long before C2D finds its way into the MBP, I think Apple will be laughed at by a lot of the other manufacturers who have already announced models due before the holiday season.
If it takes that long before C2D finds its way into the MBP, I think Apple will be laughed at by a lot of the other manufacturers who have already announced models due before the holiday season.
stoid
Aug 8, 07:20 AM
Sorry to say this, but you're simplifying things too much. Just because a monitor has the same size/resolution, doesn't mean that the LCD sources are identical.
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
more...
oldMac
Aug 10, 08:35 AM
And that's what's so sinister about the electrics. Because it is hard to track just how efficient (or inefficient) the electricity from the grid is... people tend to ignore that whole side of the equation. But it is just as important.
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
so the efficiency of the power coming off the grid becomes the primary concern. And figuring that out is much harder than looking at mpg numbers.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
How many pounds of coal/gallons of oil are burned at the power plant to get your Volt a mile down the road (I assume it works out to be fairly efficent, but I don't know any numbers)?
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
More importantly, would a proliferation in plug-ins result in regular rolling blackouts because power plants can't keep up with rising demand?
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
The biggest thing Americans have trouble with is adjusting to smaller cars. The cars we drive are, on average, unneccesarily big - and anyone who says otherwise is thought to be a Communist.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Lifestyle changes (buying a smaller car, driving less) are the only way to really reduce fuel consumption on a national or global scale in the near to medium future. We can't wait for technology alone to pick up the slack.
And if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
so the efficiency of the power coming off the grid becomes the primary concern. And figuring that out is much harder than looking at mpg numbers.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
How many pounds of coal/gallons of oil are burned at the power plant to get your Volt a mile down the road (I assume it works out to be fairly efficent, but I don't know any numbers)?
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
More importantly, would a proliferation in plug-ins result in regular rolling blackouts because power plants can't keep up with rising demand?
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
The biggest thing Americans have trouble with is adjusting to smaller cars. The cars we drive are, on average, unneccesarily big - and anyone who says otherwise is thought to be a Communist.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Lifestyle changes (buying a smaller car, driving less) are the only way to really reduce fuel consumption on a national or global scale in the near to medium future. We can't wait for technology alone to pick up the slack.
And if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
ncfuser
Jan 15, 05:42 PM
I agree with the people that are not happy.
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
Almost feels like Steve and Co. didn't get some of the things they wanted to done in time.
Such has 3G for the iPhone, TouchScreen, Blu-Ray, to name a few.
Out of the "4" topics, only two are worthwhile.
1. Wireless HDD -- Which I like. I am looking for a external HDD for my HD Camcorder video.
2. Thin laptop -- I really don't care for. A laptop without a CD/DVD drive is kinda silly. Does anyone really need something that tiny for that much $$$
The other two are not worth a Macworld Keynote and they feel like fillers to me.
So I would have to say s sub par day that didn't live up to the hipe.
:apple:
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 02:42 AM
+1
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
kirky29
Apr 25, 12:24 PM
Looks nice actually.
iPhone 4S has a nice ring to it too.
iPhone 4S has a nice ring to it too.
more...
PODshady
Nov 24, 04:25 PM
I get the macs that price anyways with my student discount
MorphingDragon
May 4, 03:56 AM
Just like communism
Just like Communism my arse.
This is why I don't do phone contracts. PrePay may not be as cheap in the long run but it lets you be agile with your mobile provider and they can't pull !@#$ like this as often. Currently with 2Degrees, cant see myself moving anytime soon. Work pays me $20/month for credit so I'm happy.
Just like Communism my arse.
This is why I don't do phone contracts. PrePay may not be as cheap in the long run but it lets you be agile with your mobile provider and they can't pull !@#$ like this as often. Currently with 2Degrees, cant see myself moving anytime soon. Work pays me $20/month for credit so I'm happy.
bushido
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
more worried about it still using the dated iOS :P
altecXP
Apr 29, 07:36 PM
Is this a second 1GB+ update after the last 1GB update?
hynke
May 4, 05:52 AM
Sign! With this an iPad would be interesting for me for drawing. A stylus beats fingers for drawing, the Egypts knew that 5000 years ago, but seems like Steve doesn't.
Except that there allready are lots of people that use iPad for drawing like the guy in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYOWA8HdFM
Except that there allready are lots of people that use iPad for drawing like the guy in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYOWA8HdFM
lordonuthin
May 8, 08:01 PM
so do you have it up and folding now?
It is folding at stock speed with threading turned off and it is doing big normal units at 3 minutes per frame. For some reason it hasn't gotten any -bigadv units since I set it up like this. It is using all 6 cores at least.
i've been working on mine this morning. i gave up on 4.0 ghz and it's now running at 3.7 ghz. i think this is stable, but i guess we'll see
3.7 is still really good, hope it stays there ok.
well i lost another bigadv unit on my alienware rig. but i did get my 2nd gtx 260 going on that machine, so that's a plus. and i just upped it to 3.7 ghz. we'll see how it goes
I'm starting to think that gpu's are the only way to go from now on; you tend not to lose wu's on them and if you do it only takes a couple of hours to catch up to where you were on the last one, not the day or 2 like bigadv units.
Hope that Alienware rig works ok now, can you get anymore gpu's in it?
It is folding at stock speed with threading turned off and it is doing big normal units at 3 minutes per frame. For some reason it hasn't gotten any -bigadv units since I set it up like this. It is using all 6 cores at least.
i've been working on mine this morning. i gave up on 4.0 ghz and it's now running at 3.7 ghz. i think this is stable, but i guess we'll see
3.7 is still really good, hope it stays there ok.
well i lost another bigadv unit on my alienware rig. but i did get my 2nd gtx 260 going on that machine, so that's a plus. and i just upped it to 3.7 ghz. we'll see how it goes
I'm starting to think that gpu's are the only way to go from now on; you tend not to lose wu's on them and if you do it only takes a couple of hours to catch up to where you were on the last one, not the day or 2 like bigadv units.
Hope that Alienware rig works ok now, can you get anymore gpu's in it?
dubels
Apr 11, 07:35 PM
Sharks playoff tickets against the Kings 4/16
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
http://sharkspage.com/jpgs4/sharks_territory.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5611814286_62d5df7613.jpg
Yannick
Oct 17, 09:53 AM
yawn! the disc is dead.
(dying, at least.)
I personnally don't agree. Movies you can buy and download still have poorer resolution, only one language, no bonus. Plus it takes so much room on your hard drive! You end up having to burn them anyway on a disc, or having to buy two huge hard drives for backup/safety purpose in case your hard drive dies. I own something like 150 DVD. That's about 1 TB (2 TB if you backup)� You really can't compare it to the music situation. Movies on DVD are cheaper than music CD. I get brand new DVDs through internet for an average of 7 � ($8.77). For me to buy a movie on iTunes, it would have to sell for 3 or 4 � ($4 or $5) to be worth it.
(dying, at least.)
I personnally don't agree. Movies you can buy and download still have poorer resolution, only one language, no bonus. Plus it takes so much room on your hard drive! You end up having to burn them anyway on a disc, or having to buy two huge hard drives for backup/safety purpose in case your hard drive dies. I own something like 150 DVD. That's about 1 TB (2 TB if you backup)� You really can't compare it to the music situation. Movies on DVD are cheaper than music CD. I get brand new DVDs through internet for an average of 7 � ($8.77). For me to buy a movie on iTunes, it would have to sell for 3 or 4 � ($4 or $5) to be worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment