Digidesign
Sep 19, 05:10 PM
That's really interesting! You just held "c" at boot to load up the XP CD?
I'm guessing you still needed to use a "slipstreamed" XP SP2 CD with the SATA drivers installed so it doesn't run in dog slow PIO mode
Where the hell did you find chipset drivers, graphics card drivers, sound card drivers etc? :confused:
Clarification:
I made a MacPro driver CD from Bootcamp, and a slipstreamed XP SP2 CD. The slipstreamed XP SP2 CD boots up just fine holding "c" at boot.
I'm guessing you still needed to use a "slipstreamed" XP SP2 CD with the SATA drivers installed so it doesn't run in dog slow PIO mode
Where the hell did you find chipset drivers, graphics card drivers, sound card drivers etc? :confused:
Clarification:
I made a MacPro driver CD from Bootcamp, and a slipstreamed XP SP2 CD. The slipstreamed XP SP2 CD boots up just fine holding "c" at boot.
gregorsamsa
Nov 2, 05:17 PM
In respect to the dedicated graphics card, I totally agree with you here. I keep saying it, but a dedicated gaming machine made in the Apple style would absolutely vault them 5% in share overnight. Maybe more.
However in my experience, fewer people are waiting on Vista for a new machine than you may think. I'm really surprised at how little buzz Vista is getting. I've got several friends with HIGH END hardware running Vista beta now, and the all think it works great except for Aero, which to a person they have all turned off. Every single one of them complains about the speed, but say it is very solid crash-wise, especially for a beta. But when I press them if they will actually buy Vista the day it comes out, all but one said no. The main reason is that there is just nothing all that compelling there. And what with significant evidence (http://media.grc.com/sn/SN-051.mp3) that they have completely re-written their networking stack, I think I'll be with them on the sidelines waiting for a while until they work the bugs out.
So at least in my limited experience, people who need new hardware are buying it now - and not really waiting for Vista, which may be 9-12 months off for them anyway. What this means to me is that Apple's marketshare increases can be written off as an anomaly all that easily.
Thanks for the interesting podcast link. I wasn't unaware of Vista's possible security problems, I just never realized how bad the worst case scenario could be...despite all the delayed launches. Yes, potentially a hackers paradise, but I'd still be surprised if the final version of Vista wasn't far more secure than previous versions of W$.
I think you're right that some people will be wary of becoming early adopters of Vista in light of all the cited beta-version problems. Many may wait for a Vista SP edition (some 12 months away). Also, there's bound to be some initial confusion for less savvy PC users when faced with 6 different versions of Vista. Despite this, I still expect many millions to be swayed by M$'s mass advertizing campaigns to take the plunge soon after launch.
But like you, I think none of this need greatly affect Apple's steady rise in marketshare. For sure, Mac OS X will remain the best & most secure OS there is. I just have growing doubts about whether Apple's lack of dedicated graphics in their consumer Macs, combined with the novelty of M$'s new baby, won't cost Apple dearly in the long term. - I very much hope I'll be proved wrong.
However in my experience, fewer people are waiting on Vista for a new machine than you may think. I'm really surprised at how little buzz Vista is getting. I've got several friends with HIGH END hardware running Vista beta now, and the all think it works great except for Aero, which to a person they have all turned off. Every single one of them complains about the speed, but say it is very solid crash-wise, especially for a beta. But when I press them if they will actually buy Vista the day it comes out, all but one said no. The main reason is that there is just nothing all that compelling there. And what with significant evidence (http://media.grc.com/sn/SN-051.mp3) that they have completely re-written their networking stack, I think I'll be with them on the sidelines waiting for a while until they work the bugs out.
So at least in my limited experience, people who need new hardware are buying it now - and not really waiting for Vista, which may be 9-12 months off for them anyway. What this means to me is that Apple's marketshare increases can be written off as an anomaly all that easily.
Thanks for the interesting podcast link. I wasn't unaware of Vista's possible security problems, I just never realized how bad the worst case scenario could be...despite all the delayed launches. Yes, potentially a hackers paradise, but I'd still be surprised if the final version of Vista wasn't far more secure than previous versions of W$.
I think you're right that some people will be wary of becoming early adopters of Vista in light of all the cited beta-version problems. Many may wait for a Vista SP edition (some 12 months away). Also, there's bound to be some initial confusion for less savvy PC users when faced with 6 different versions of Vista. Despite this, I still expect many millions to be swayed by M$'s mass advertizing campaigns to take the plunge soon after launch.
But like you, I think none of this need greatly affect Apple's steady rise in marketshare. For sure, Mac OS X will remain the best & most secure OS there is. I just have growing doubts about whether Apple's lack of dedicated graphics in their consumer Macs, combined with the novelty of M$'s new baby, won't cost Apple dearly in the long term. - I very much hope I'll be proved wrong.
TheSideshow
Apr 22, 06:30 PM
What I learned today: Mac users are hipster douches who think they are tech savvy, but still too dumb to run Windows.
gkarris
Apr 22, 11:23 PM
I'm a little bit Rock 'n Roll... :eek:
;)
;)
more...
DeSnousa
Apr 18, 12:58 AM
Hope to see you join the team GSX, if you don't won't to run it 24/7 don't just have the client on when you use the computer. It is designed so that you do not notice a decrease in speed when using the client.
Great to know the the project is open, I never gave it that much thought :o Still even if it was run at a profit the fact is a cure has still occured :)
Great to know the the project is open, I never gave it that much thought :o Still even if it was run at a profit the fact is a cure has still occured :)
brasscat
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
So who is going out today to try and find one? I personally think the chances are slim to none.
If history is going to repeat itself with this iPad launch, the Apple stores will trickle in 10 or so units every day until the initial demand is met. It will be very difficult to get one for a while (I'd say for at least a couple months), unless you're willing to call every Apple store in your area every day in hopes to reserve one before others do.
I've resigned myself to the simpler option: I've ordered online with a three-four week delivery timeframe. And with that I feel like I'm evolving.
If history is going to repeat itself with this iPad launch, the Apple stores will trickle in 10 or so units every day until the initial demand is met. It will be very difficult to get one for a while (I'd say for at least a couple months), unless you're willing to call every Apple store in your area every day in hopes to reserve one before others do.
I've resigned myself to the simpler option: I've ordered online with a three-four week delivery timeframe. And with that I feel like I'm evolving.
more...
intlplby
Nov 14, 09:59 AM
Zune will probably only need an adapter to work with all this stuff
intlplby
Nov 14, 09:59 AM
Zune will probably only need an adapter to work with all this stuff
more...
RaZaK
Mar 27, 02:38 PM
Funny, but considering the Man in Black goes around gathering information about people and promising them everything they want for free, I'm not so sure you have the roles quite right. :D
epic, inkswamp, freakin' epic. :D
epic, inkswamp, freakin' epic. :D
GilGrissom
Oct 25, 10:55 AM
A friend and I are now going, meeting there straight after work, but we might not get there until just gone 6, depending on how fast the tube is! Look forward to seeing you all there! Always wanted to go to a product launch and feel the hype! Now I'm in London I can!
Here's a quick question, does the family pack still only come with 1 disk or does it come with 5 separate ones for each license? (I have several macs in the house and it's cheaper to get the family pack, obviously!)
Here's a quick question, does the family pack still only come with 1 disk or does it come with 5 separate ones for each license? (I have several macs in the house and it's cheaper to get the family pack, obviously!)
more...
Eidorian
Apr 5, 10:49 AM
Oh boy, another waiting game.
BC2009
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
Exactly, for those folks who think Kodak was just a film company you're totally off base. They had the diversity but not the vision to adjust to the transition and ended up wholesale auctioning their future. Kinda what we're doing as a country right now.
Kodak believed that their "customers" were the drug stores that did the film developing -- and those drug stores hated the idea of digital photography. So instead of focusing on the their real customers (i.e.: those who used their camera and film) they played to the whims of the drug stores and the entire digital revolution passed them by.
Funny though, one of the best cameras we ever had for producing decent photos was the one that used their magnetic film and showed you what the picture you just took looked like on a little LCD screen. If you did not like the picture you could mark it for "do not develop" and then take another. You saved money on developing bad photos this way and you were still using film (albeit a new kind of film). I can still remember the commercial for that camera with the young couple visiting in Italy trying to get different locals to take photos of them in a specific spot so they could make it look just like an old photo they had of one of their parents in the same spot from decades earlier. Each photo that turned out wrong was marked to not be developed and then they would try again until they got the perfect shot. Funny how they did not see that digital photography accomplished the same thing but in a better way. They really missed the boat.
Kodak believed that their "customers" were the drug stores that did the film developing -- and those drug stores hated the idea of digital photography. So instead of focusing on the their real customers (i.e.: those who used their camera and film) they played to the whims of the drug stores and the entire digital revolution passed them by.
Funny though, one of the best cameras we ever had for producing decent photos was the one that used their magnetic film and showed you what the picture you just took looked like on a little LCD screen. If you did not like the picture you could mark it for "do not develop" and then take another. You saved money on developing bad photos this way and you were still using film (albeit a new kind of film). I can still remember the commercial for that camera with the young couple visiting in Italy trying to get different locals to take photos of them in a specific spot so they could make it look just like an old photo they had of one of their parents in the same spot from decades earlier. Each photo that turned out wrong was marked to not be developed and then they would try again until they got the perfect shot. Funny how they did not see that digital photography accomplished the same thing but in a better way. They really missed the boat.
more...
Spaceboy88
Apr 5, 08:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Capacitive home button sounds believable as apple has gone away with buttons on the MacBooks trackpad. Apple likes touch, not clicking. Lol
I don't buy it. What a nightmare that would be if just touching that area of the iPod took you back to the home screen. (Even the MacBook trackpads require a physical 'click' in order to register.) This would be a usability disaster.
Capacitive home button sounds believable as apple has gone away with buttons on the MacBooks trackpad. Apple likes touch, not clicking. Lol
I don't buy it. What a nightmare that would be if just touching that area of the iPod took you back to the home screen. (Even the MacBook trackpads require a physical 'click' in order to register.) This would be a usability disaster.
mizzytheboy
May 3, 08:21 AM
I would like to become an ordinary man ... Can I get an iPad as a gift?
:rolleyes: :apple:
:rolleyes: :apple:
more...
Narrie
Mar 28, 08:16 AM
Looking forward!
Watabou
Apr 30, 05:02 PM
No, you made his point because you went all defensive and fearful over Android.
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
Huh?! I didn't think I got defensive over Android. I don't know how just stating Android was difficult to use translates to "I am defensive and fearful over Android".
I just stated Android was difficult to use. That's similar to saying I like eating icecream out of the box rather than taking my time putting it in a bowl or a cone and then eating it. See what I'm saying? Now, some people may like the latter way but I much prefer iPhone's navigation, iPhone browser, perfect integration with iTunes, iCal, Mail and others, and the App Store to Android. That said, I do like a lot of the Android features, especially the notification bar that just amazed me.
I use iPhone because I found it much intuitive to use. If you take my iPhone away and force me to use Android, will I enjoy it? No of course not but I won't be fearful of using it...geez.
P.S. Android has over 300 pages of user manual. But that's beside the point right? ;)
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
Huh?! I didn't think I got defensive over Android. I don't know how just stating Android was difficult to use translates to "I am defensive and fearful over Android".
I just stated Android was difficult to use. That's similar to saying I like eating icecream out of the box rather than taking my time putting it in a bowl or a cone and then eating it. See what I'm saying? Now, some people may like the latter way but I much prefer iPhone's navigation, iPhone browser, perfect integration with iTunes, iCal, Mail and others, and the App Store to Android. That said, I do like a lot of the Android features, especially the notification bar that just amazed me.
I use iPhone because I found it much intuitive to use. If you take my iPhone away and force me to use Android, will I enjoy it? No of course not but I won't be fearful of using it...geez.
P.S. Android has over 300 pages of user manual. But that's beside the point right? ;)
more...
dernhelm
Mar 29, 12:57 PM
He wears mock turtlenecks all the time:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/01/16/2003522169.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=steve+jobs+turtleneck&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=WNawS5yOFYKB8gbamJXdCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA
And everyone knows the real reason you wear turtlenecks!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/01/16/2003522169.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=steve+jobs+turtleneck&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=WNawS5yOFYKB8gbamJXdCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsAQwAA
And everyone knows the real reason you wear turtlenecks!
thatisme
Mar 29, 10:58 AM
sorry man.. i just cannot help you...
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
bigcat318
May 24, 05:25 PM
JUst wondering...so it doesoes it work max settings on everything?
I play it with settings on a mix of High and Ultra. I have the original version of the 15" unibody, 512mb graphics.
I play it with settings on a mix of High and Ultra. I have the original version of the 15" unibody, 512mb graphics.
4JNA
Apr 17, 11:58 PM
Ultimately where does all this research go? Who is benefitting from it all? I can't help but think that all this research will just enable some multi-billion dollar drug company to come up with some pill that they can patent and make billions of more dollars. I tried reading the faqs of Folding@home, but it does not really say where all this research is going. I am sure the scientists mean well with their research, but ultimately they will not be the ones creating the drugs to cure these diseases. Drug companies will be doing that, and they are strictly profit oriented.
per the FAQ on the F@H page...
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them?
"Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's - Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles that analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
it's open source science. everyone participates, everyone wins.
2) My electricity prices are going up by about 10% so I really don't like the idea of my iMac running 24-7 eating up electricity, and adding to the wear and tear of my system. I'm not sure what the monthly cost would be running Folding@home, but I'm sure it adds up.
the cost of gasoline is up also, but i still drive my paper/plastic/glass to the city recycle point to keep it out of a landfill. i guess i don't get the point of the question. if you can afford the small increase in cost due to additional electrical usage, then fold. if not, don't.
no idea which system you have, but a quick guesstimate of a current imac running folding with the screen set to turn off when not being used would be around 100-120w, so like leaving a light bulb on. well, an old school incandescent bulb... you do have all LED and CFLs since you worry about electric rates, right?
if i had only an imac and a desire to fold, i'd leave the imac alone and build a cheap pc system to fold with. no wear and tear, better results, lower cost. just my 2 cents.
per the FAQ on the F@H page...
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them?
"Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's - Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles that analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site."
it's open source science. everyone participates, everyone wins.
2) My electricity prices are going up by about 10% so I really don't like the idea of my iMac running 24-7 eating up electricity, and adding to the wear and tear of my system. I'm not sure what the monthly cost would be running Folding@home, but I'm sure it adds up.
the cost of gasoline is up also, but i still drive my paper/plastic/glass to the city recycle point to keep it out of a landfill. i guess i don't get the point of the question. if you can afford the small increase in cost due to additional electrical usage, then fold. if not, don't.
no idea which system you have, but a quick guesstimate of a current imac running folding with the screen set to turn off when not being used would be around 100-120w, so like leaving a light bulb on. well, an old school incandescent bulb... you do have all LED and CFLs since you worry about electric rates, right?
if i had only an imac and a desire to fold, i'd leave the imac alone and build a cheap pc system to fold with. no wear and tear, better results, lower cost. just my 2 cents.
Jamekae
Mar 27, 01:46 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/03/26/160022-jobs_schmidt_coffee.jpg
STEVE: No hard feelings, but the prophecy said "Neither can live while the other survives."
STEVE: No hard feelings, but the prophecy said "Neither can live while the other survives."
Steve Jobless
Oct 9, 05:06 PM
maybe if target dropped their pricing they wouldnt have this problem
RogueLdr
Sep 19, 04:15 PM
It's a shame, however, that Apple will probably never link to this page due to the fact that they are not #1 on the list. The similiarity in performance of the G4 system and the Pentium system speaks highly of the efficiency of the G4 processor.
RL
RL
Mr.Gadget
Sep 25, 10:16 AM
If the MBP's or other hardware is not updated at this event, then when is the next public event to have this happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment