dgree03
Apr 28, 08:23 AM
Excellent! I love it when people put these predictions down in black and white for posterity. OK, see you in 2020 when the Tablet Era will be ten years old, the dominant computer format people buy, and containing capabilities that we cannot even imagine now.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
But you've put down in writing that it will not be something you work with even then. Noted.
What are tablets going to overtake? I just dont get it... Desktops? Laptops?
I can see hybrid solutions, like the ASUS EEE Tablet. But they are not NEARLY powerful enough to run certain applications. I just dont see large businesses, such as the government replacing laptop, and desktop with tablets!? not in th next 10 years DEFINATELY.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:08 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
What hateful nonsense.
What hateful nonsense.
ksz
Nov 2, 06:51 PM
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 24, 07:06 PM
"When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature ... they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
"These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances," Tomasi said.
As soon as they quit trying to legislate and force their beliefs on the rest of us, the sooner they will be left alone to wallow in their archaic beliefs.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:01 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl was 25 years ago and Russia was not very open to outside help ... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:37 PM
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ...
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 09:52 AM
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body.
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
arn
Oct 25, 10:32 PM
It would be the first for Apple. :cool:
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Multimedia
Oct 20, 06:25 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
BI'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005 model? I notice mine has no moving parts touch sensitive controls that are so stealth. I really love the black or dark brown matt finish way more than the shiny aluminum Apple finish. In the dark, this matt dark brown disappears so only the screens are floating there.
______________________
High Definition TV Was 23" on the 24" now 29" on the 30 - up 126%.
Interpolates up 133% wonderfully to 2560 Wide x 1440 High.
While the High Def programming looks great, it really makes the standard def programming look quite a bit worse than it does on the native res 24".
I envy you kids who won't have to live with analog and standard def digital TV very many more years. For old folks like me who have been anticipating and waiting for High-Def TV for many years - and I can assure you we are very few, it can't happen too soon 'cause we will be dead very soon after the transition is complete. :(
AJsAWiz
Sep 2, 01:25 PM
:D:D:D
The happiest dat of
Great! :) Hope you come back and let us know how the service is and how it compares to AT&T. Which phone did you get?
[QUOTE=drapacioli;10977661]Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
You might have a point. I've been side by side with another person (also an AT&T subscriber) who has a Nokia. I have no or low bars and they have bars.
The happiest dat of
Great! :) Hope you come back and let us know how the service is and how it compares to AT&T. Which phone did you get?
[QUOTE=drapacioli;10977661]Is it just certain phones that get dropped calls? I have AT&T and when I demoed the iPhone in store the only phone call I tried to make with it was a dropped call. But my current phone, the Samsung Captivate, I have never even had a low signal, let alone a dropped call.
You might have a point. I've been side by side with another person (also an AT&T subscriber) who has a Nokia. I have no or low bars and they have bars.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
entatlrg
Mar 13, 02:04 PM
Perfectly fine using the new designs that run safer and can even recycle their own waste. I would not have dismissed the entire car industry just because the early models lacked safety features and had high fatality and breakdown rates. It's early days still for the nuclear power industry. We do need to work on uranium mining and milling practices, however.
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
Automobile safety features and breakdowns compared to nuclear disaster.
Huh?
PeckhamBog
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
Note to self - note the above.
Stage
Mar 18, 06:49 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
joeshmo2010
Mar 18, 01:23 PM
I will always continue to use tethering with my unlimited. They will never make me switch and they can accuse all they want.
h'biki
Mar 20, 05:33 PM
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
Lau
Aug 29, 11:05 AM
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
skunk
Apr 24, 05:59 PM
The freedom of women is an archaic subject. It is established that women generally had less rights as we go back in time.If it was the Word of God™ itself that came from Mohammed's lips, then surely it would sound less like the word of a warlike, bigoted misogynist. Jesus' words are remarkably peaceful and inclusive by comparison. Paul of course, and other "spokesmen" for the organisation, added all kinds of glosses and amendments which were not part of Jesus' original message as transmitted to us.
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.Perhaps we can agree on haram? :)
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 08:22 AM
You agreed to a contract. Live with it or pay to get out of it, couldn't be simpler.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).
They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)
So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________
And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:
LimeiBook86
Apr 15, 09:14 AM
Pixar did a similar video like this, it was the first one I've seen. Glad to see Apple doing one as well. :) Great idea, very nice! :D
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
Pipian
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?