twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:50 AM
He's also the guy that headed up Adobe Premiere. Sure, the iMovie revamp wasn't a high point but the guy laid the foundations for two of the three most popular NLE's so he can't be all bad. ;)
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
Lethal
And if Randy / Apple screws it up then we can always do this (http://www.avid.com/US/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S3).
RebootD
Apr 11, 10:29 PM
As a print/web designer who is getting more and more requests for video and animation I'm very interested to see what they do with FCP. I actually moved up from CS4 Design to CS5 Master to utilize the 64bit versions of Premiere and AE. And holy crap are they faster and use 100% of all 8 threads of my MP.
If the Final Cut suite can finally move to x64 and take advantage of my TWO YEAR OLD hardware then I may just switch back because I'm way more used to the older FCS suite.
If the Final Cut suite can finally move to x64 and take advantage of my TWO YEAR OLD hardware then I may just switch back because I'm way more used to the older FCS suite.
Silentwave
Jul 15, 03:29 AM
10. Reasonably priced. Check out current PC boxes!
You know the more I think about it the more I question Apple's ability to make anything with a Xeon particularly cheap. I've been pricing all sorts of Dell workstations with the 5100 series Xeon-Woodcrest cores... even the single chip versions are not cheap. Granted, they may have inflated prices due to targeting at the large business market, but still they wouldn't be cheap. We'll see, but the more I think about it maybe we will see Conroe at the low end.
You know the more I think about it the more I question Apple's ability to make anything with a Xeon particularly cheap. I've been pricing all sorts of Dell workstations with the 5100 series Xeon-Woodcrest cores... even the single chip versions are not cheap. Granted, they may have inflated prices due to targeting at the large business market, but still they wouldn't be cheap. We'll see, but the more I think about it maybe we will see Conroe at the low end.
shawnce
Sep 19, 11:09 AM
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
- 2 CPU cores compared to 1 CPU core
- Radically greater FSB bandwidth
- PC2-5300 DDR2 memory compared to PC2-4200 DDR2
- PCIe 16x for graphics controller compared to AGP 8x
- Improved graphics controller with more VRAM
- Dedicated 1.5 Gbps SATA for hard disk compared to UATA-100
- ExpressCard/34 (has PCIe 1x and USB 2.0) compared to CardBus
- MagSafe power connector
- Built-in iSight camera
- etc.
The ExpressCard alone allows high-speed adapters to external SATA, FireWire, Fibre Channel, etc. devices. It allows for some interesting flexibility that never existed with the PowerBooks.
- 2 CPU cores compared to 1 CPU core
- Radically greater FSB bandwidth
- PC2-5300 DDR2 memory compared to PC2-4200 DDR2
- PCIe 16x for graphics controller compared to AGP 8x
- Improved graphics controller with more VRAM
- Dedicated 1.5 Gbps SATA for hard disk compared to UATA-100
- ExpressCard/34 (has PCIe 1x and USB 2.0) compared to CardBus
- MagSafe power connector
- Built-in iSight camera
- etc.
The ExpressCard alone allows high-speed adapters to external SATA, FireWire, Fibre Channel, etc. devices. It allows for some interesting flexibility that never existed with the PowerBooks.
Peace
Aug 5, 03:53 PM
This roundup is missing:
*New Cinema Displays with iSight - Widely Anticipated
*xServe - Almost definitely in my opinion, because without these, Steve cannot say that "the transition is complete".
*"Maps" application in Leopard - according to AppleInsider
There is no way in the world Apple will be putting iSights in the Cinema Displays.
xServe will be updated at WWDC2006.Thats a given.
OS 10.4.7 Server sold with each new xServe.
There will be no standalone DVD sold.
*New Cinema Displays with iSight - Widely Anticipated
*xServe - Almost definitely in my opinion, because without these, Steve cannot say that "the transition is complete".
*"Maps" application in Leopard - according to AppleInsider
There is no way in the world Apple will be putting iSights in the Cinema Displays.
xServe will be updated at WWDC2006.Thats a given.
OS 10.4.7 Server sold with each new xServe.
There will be no standalone DVD sold.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 09:26 AM
Just returned from Radio Shack.
I turned in my 32GB 3GS (with all accessories)
which was in almost excellent condition except
for a chip and a scratch and received a $247 credit.
They handed my SIMM card back to me so essentially
the phone is rendered useless.
That falls between what their website pays for
a pristine phone ($301) and a moderate wear ($226).
So, not bad, a $247 credit off of iPhone 4.
Radio Shack is taking preorders starting Thursday.
Essentially, they special order the phone for you.
That pretty much guarantees you a phone on opening day.
All you need to do is leave a $50 deposit when ordering.
They are not certain if they will have the phone
accessories or not.
I turned in my 32GB 3GS (with all accessories)
which was in almost excellent condition except
for a chip and a scratch and received a $247 credit.
They handed my SIMM card back to me so essentially
the phone is rendered useless.
That falls between what their website pays for
a pristine phone ($301) and a moderate wear ($226).
So, not bad, a $247 credit off of iPhone 4.
Radio Shack is taking preorders starting Thursday.
Essentially, they special order the phone for you.
That pretty much guarantees you a phone on opening day.
All you need to do is leave a $50 deposit when ordering.
They are not certain if they will have the phone
accessories or not.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:36 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare. In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones.
Ya right. :rolleyes:
Ya right. :rolleyes:
Tomaz
Aug 7, 06:07 PM
Innovation isn't creating new ideas, but improving them.
For instance, Spotlight searching wasn't new. BeOS had something similar. But Apple improved it and integrated it into their OS.
See, I have Virtue desktops. I've tried Desktop Manager, You Control: Desktops. But they're all just hacks. Spaces looks mcuh cleaner, simpler and elegant than any of those. That's what I expect from Apple, and they did not let me down.
As for Time Machine, no the idea is not new, even for Microsoft. But Apple is making it simple. Easy enough for mom and dad to use. Personally I think having a wormhole-space interface is kickass.
Ok my last post on this topic before I'm getting on peoples nerves: Copying, improving and whatever you wanna call it is ok, I don't care where an idea came from as long as the outcome is good. But Apple always presents their innovations as their inventions and claims that everyone else copies. In todays keynote they even made a big deal out of how MS copies Apple (banner, on stage), and afterwards they introduced only stuff that they copied (and maybe improved) from MS, Linux... that's just not very sympathetic!
For instance, Spotlight searching wasn't new. BeOS had something similar. But Apple improved it and integrated it into their OS.
See, I have Virtue desktops. I've tried Desktop Manager, You Control: Desktops. But they're all just hacks. Spaces looks mcuh cleaner, simpler and elegant than any of those. That's what I expect from Apple, and they did not let me down.
As for Time Machine, no the idea is not new, even for Microsoft. But Apple is making it simple. Easy enough for mom and dad to use. Personally I think having a wormhole-space interface is kickass.
Ok my last post on this topic before I'm getting on peoples nerves: Copying, improving and whatever you wanna call it is ok, I don't care where an idea came from as long as the outcome is good. But Apple always presents their innovations as their inventions and claims that everyone else copies. In todays keynote they even made a big deal out of how MS copies Apple (banner, on stage), and afterwards they introduced only stuff that they copied (and maybe improved) from MS, Linux... that's just not very sympathetic!
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Grimes
Apr 11, 03:43 PM
If we're waiting until September for PRODUCTION, then I think we'll see something great in the late fall or early winter.
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
Very interesting notifications concept!
I just want a leap with iOS 5. My take on notifications:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWO6VkJh-0
Very interesting notifications concept!
wiestlingjr
Jun 9, 07:23 PM
Bibbz,
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
BoyBach
Nov 29, 06:20 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 03:42 PM
Everyone is trying to get a piece of what Apple created - and not suffer the same fate that all those that tried to compete with the iPod faced.
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Please get someone who understands cell technology to explain this to you.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.
And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.
dougny
Nov 28, 06:44 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:32 AM
How is the talk of slower performance because the database isn't as large any different than the discussion about the data in the first place.
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
neko girl
Mar 3, 10:48 PM
That's strange. I've never seen my ignorance stagger. I've always thought it couldn't walk. ;)
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Seriously, please educate me, neko girl.
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
twoodcc
Aug 11, 05:30 PM
No, there has been 8 Gran Turismo games totaling 56M. If you only count the 4 full release titles, you get 46M.
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
Huntn
Aug 17, 01:17 PM
Shift was good, but i thought it was really easy. Its also very forgiving, you dont need to have a lot of driving skill to finish the top races because drifting is really easy to control, you can enter turns quite a bit faster than you should, and you'll have more money than you know what to do with.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
gerrycurl
Jul 14, 06:00 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
ferguldy
Jul 27, 09:49 AM
So are we really going to get ALL of these new toys come WWDC? Leopard preview, Merom laptops, Core2/Woodcrest Mac Pros, Core2 Imacs (oh, and maybe a movie download add to iTunes) That sounds like an awful lot of stuff to cover in such a short period of time. What do people think about timelines for introduction here?
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 08:05 PM
They still can not have valid sacramental marriage
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Sure they can. There are other beliefs than Catholicism and Christianity.
Fornication doesn't matter if the person doesn't care about the religious connotations of marriage
Sure they can. There are other beliefs than Catholicism and Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment