Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:33 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
It was bound to happen. Apple makes the hardware and the phone and distributes it to providers.
Google makes the software, distributes it to manufacturers, who than distribute to providers.
Its a different model and Apples model works best however, the super closed ecosystem will always present some sort of issues amongst users. Either way you slice it Android isn't going anywhere and neither is iOS. Both are great platforms and the people that bash either without acknowledging that are uninformed fanboys/fandroids.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
It was bound to happen. Apple makes the hardware and the phone and distributes it to providers.
Google makes the software, distributes it to manufacturers, who than distribute to providers.
Its a different model and Apples model works best however, the super closed ecosystem will always present some sort of issues amongst users. Either way you slice it Android isn't going anywhere and neither is iOS. Both are great platforms and the people that bash either without acknowledging that are uninformed fanboys/fandroids.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
My 17" has backlit keys and I like them. Is that so wrong?
Bilbo63
Apr 19, 06:44 PM
Which launched 6 months after the original iPhone...and was displayed in February of 2007 with an entirely different interface.
The point is no one will ever confuse this with Apple's iPhone... But what Samsung is doing now is another story.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
The point is no one will ever confuse this with Apple's iPhone... But what Samsung is doing now is another story.
If you look at each item that Apple takes exception with individually it seems silly, but when you put them all together in a single device it's a twin to the iPhone... An iClone.:rolleyes:
john123
Sep 19, 09:57 AM
The pre-release tests I saw reckoned Merom was about 25% faster with 7% longer battery life. Though they are pretty meaningless figures and we won't know until Merom is actually in a Macbook and a comparable test can be made.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
I'd imagine there will be far bigger improvements to both with Santa Rosa and nand cache (which I presume Apple will support) than there is with Merom.
Check out the iMac benchmarks. The actual speed improvement (i.e., not the Intel hyped numbers) are much more modest.
bobsentell
Apr 7, 11:32 PM
Meh. Makes room for HP's inventory. You know, the company that sells more computers than any other company. :D
Silentwave
Aug 6, 10:18 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
No, that just means that if you'd been looking at hthe other threads, you'd know that there is *nothing* new on the banner- they won't be spoiling any of the stevenote's surprises! Apple isn't dumb.
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.
SmileyBlast!
Apr 11, 12:28 PM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
I definitely agree with this.
They need to keep their Market Share and Lead position with regular updates to the iPhone franchise.
Popeye206
Apr 11, 02:17 PM
LOL at all of the people saying it's a big mistake and bad move on Apple's part. They know what they are doing. Why would they do something that would hurt their iPhone sales?!
They just put out the iPhone 4 verizon. If they refresh in June they will have to do both AT&T and Verizon. Otherwise, Verizon will always play second fiddle with updates. Dumb move. They are waiting for enough time to pass where it won't be just 6 months between verizon updates.
I don't think Apple is waiting because of the Verizon phone. I think they just are making more changes than just simple upgrades and it's going to take longer. I think they also see that iPhone4 sales are still heathy so why rush it?
Release iOS 5.0 this summer, then follow-up with the new iPhone5 in the fall. Keep up the momentum and slaughter the competition in the fall during the busiest season for gadgets.
I see nothing wrong with the iPhone5 in the fall. "Na sayers" can say what they want, but in the long run it does not matter as long as the iPhone5 is a healthy upgrade.
The only downside is, Apple may be so darn busy in the fall with new products, that you won't even be able to get in their stores!
They just put out the iPhone 4 verizon. If they refresh in June they will have to do both AT&T and Verizon. Otherwise, Verizon will always play second fiddle with updates. Dumb move. They are waiting for enough time to pass where it won't be just 6 months between verizon updates.
I don't think Apple is waiting because of the Verizon phone. I think they just are making more changes than just simple upgrades and it's going to take longer. I think they also see that iPhone4 sales are still heathy so why rush it?
Release iOS 5.0 this summer, then follow-up with the new iPhone5 in the fall. Keep up the momentum and slaughter the competition in the fall during the busiest season for gadgets.
I see nothing wrong with the iPhone5 in the fall. "Na sayers" can say what they want, but in the long run it does not matter as long as the iPhone5 is a healthy upgrade.
The only downside is, Apple may be so darn busy in the fall with new products, that you won't even be able to get in their stores!
iJohnHenry
Mar 19, 05:52 PM
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;)
OMG. I guess I should not have deleted those White House E-mails as spam. :eek:
OMG. I guess I should not have deleted those White House E-mails as spam. :eek:
gorgeousninja
Apr 19, 04:36 PM
How can this be that 'Apple have a pretty strong case' when so many posters have said that whatever Apple does is generic, and that they have never designed or innovated anything?...
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
Oh! Ding!!
Must be cos they are all talking cr*p....
SevenInchScrew
Aug 12, 11:00 PM
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 originally said...
so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
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.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
well again this is your opinion...
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
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
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great?
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
You originally said...
so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few.
...which as I've said, a few times now, is incorrect. If you only count 4 games, as you originally said in that quote, that only totals 46M. And besides, if you check that link I originally provided, which is FROM POLYPHONY THEMSELVES, you would see that the total worldwide is only 56M. At least if you're going to quote the number in the wrong context, use the right number.
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.
Yay, let's play the "Twist The Numbers To Fit Our Needs" game....
100M / 15 years = 6.66M per year (Need for Speed)
56M / 13 years = 4.31M per year (Gran Turismo)
So yea, Need for Speed sells 50% more per year. YAY, math is fun!!!
well again this is your opinion...
It is. I don't like the direction Polyphony has taken the game. A game that used to be my favorite game. It disappoints me. Thus my frustration. I bought my PS3 with the hopes
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
Can I buy one and drive it to work? No? Then it isn't real, intentions or not.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great?
Then according to you, Wii Play is the "greatest" video game of all time. Just reading that sentence should show you exactly why sales have very little to do with the quality of a game.
I keep saying this, but it seems people don't really understand it. Sales, which deal with numbers, are an objective measure of something. Greatness, which deals with personal preferences, is a subjective measure. You can think GT, or the iPhone, or Star Wars, or whatever, is great. That is fine, and a personal opinion. But, the sales of those things can't be "great". They can be large, and they are, but they can't be great.
And really, if someone uses the sales of something to qualify the greatness of it to themselves, that is kind of sad. Quite a few of my favorite things, which I consider great, didn't sell very well. That doesn't make them any less great to me.
But anyway, I don't even know why I'm arguing about this. I'm not even going to be buying this game. I'm done with this thread now. I'll just tip my hat, and bid you adieu.
Al Coholic
Mar 26, 10:45 AM
I think there are two distinct OSX expectations out there:
1.) The "Let's make it pretty" crowd.
2.) Those of us that want some useful features.
...like resume and versions for me. Mission control looks mildly enticing if I could figure it out.
I'm looking forward to all the subtle feature changes and additions. Couldn't care less about a facelift. Leave the Fisher-Price toy themes to MS.
Still not sure what the hell Launcher does differently that can't be achieved with the App folder in the dock but whatever...
1.) The "Let's make it pretty" crowd.
2.) Those of us that want some useful features.
...like resume and versions for me. Mission control looks mildly enticing if I could figure it out.
I'm looking forward to all the subtle feature changes and additions. Couldn't care less about a facelift. Leave the Fisher-Price toy themes to MS.
Still not sure what the hell Launcher does differently that can't be achieved with the App folder in the dock but whatever...
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 12:47 PM
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
absynth
Apr 11, 01:34 PM
who cares about iphone 5, where's my white iphone4 dammit! :mad:
jordo
Nov 28, 08:46 PM
I think we all saw this coming with Microsoft setting Apple up for this with their feeble Zune; I'm not surprised. I mean it is not like Microsoft is actually going to pay up, as they would have to actually sell a unit before they did that, ha!
Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...
Universal has it coming if they think that the leading digital media player manufacturer is going to dish out money to them for a product whose production/ingenuity they have nothing to do with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Sony ever paid $10 to each music company for each CD player they sold. This is like forcing Apple to pay a fee to the manufacturer of my desk because my iBook sits on it. Jobs has no reason to give in. Apple holds 75% of the cards in the US market alone, and if other people want in on the action, they should consider themselves lucky if they are chosen. I smell a boycott...
mcrain
Mar 23, 02:59 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong? They absolutely lied, and they got stuff wrong. I believe there was malevolent intent, and to the extent that can't be proven, there was clear reckless disregard for the truth.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
prince william kate engagement
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
jljue
Apr 27, 08:44 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Law makers apparently have forgotten that they enacted a law requiring location ID on cell phones for emergency purposes--another indication that we have too many laws. :confused:
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Law makers apparently have forgotten that they enacted a law requiring location ID on cell phones for emergency purposes--another indication that we have too many laws. :confused:
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 09:52 AM
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 03:05 PM
Well you can see that with the Mac. About 3% worldwide marketshare but Apple makes tons of money with it.
And eveybody crys tears here when some 5 year old Windows games finally get ported to MacOS. You want that to happen with the iPhone and iOS compared to Android? Fine. But I'm sure 99% of iPhone buyers don't want that scenario.
Not trying to defend poor gaming on the macintosh, but android is the one getting year old titles now.
Just to make it more clear, marketshare is one small factor considered for game development. There's much more than that. For e.g. people paying for actual games, ease of code for a single graphic card [a big hassle for windows gaming].
Just read through?
And eveybody crys tears here when some 5 year old Windows games finally get ported to MacOS. You want that to happen with the iPhone and iOS compared to Android? Fine. But I'm sure 99% of iPhone buyers don't want that scenario.
Not trying to defend poor gaming on the macintosh, but android is the one getting year old titles now.
Just to make it more clear, marketshare is one small factor considered for game development. There's much more than that. For e.g. people paying for actual games, ease of code for a single graphic card [a big hassle for windows gaming].
Just read through?
Scarpad
Apr 7, 02:20 PM
I'm happy with my Current Gen Maxed 13" but I'm interested in an 11" so I'll be keeping my eyes open for what they do there.
mc68k
Dec 3, 07:50 PM
well i havent posted a lot at MR recently. i'm a long time fan of the GT series. played GT1, 2, 4. 100% completed all i think (to the extent that you could ie GT4) . memorized every track, every braking point, how to ram cars, how to cut parts of the track off, how to handle all drivetrains, how to race with dpad or analog stick, how to variate braking/accel. never used a race wheel. i'm really a purist, i won't cheat unless i have to get to the front of the pack. i like to race low HP cars or poorer handling cars or compete with a lower HP car. i read all the descriptions. i scour the used car lot for rarities. i spot cars all the time in real life and like to see them well represented in the game. i would've bought a PS3 just for this game, but i ended up getting the PS3 sooner. ive been waiting for this game for years. i like to watch car shows on tv like the spike powerblock shows, 2 guys garage, gearz, top gear (new US one sucks), battle of the supercars, mecum auctions, barrett jackson auctions, my classic car, etc
pre ordered but didnt get any of the special packs. those are pretty cool and have some nice things but i'm more about the game itself. collectors editions of games to me are akin to special editions of DVDs where u don't really get much for the extra $ u are paying.
i havent raced online yet. i read in a review where you dont really get any rewards like points or $ for the RPG part of the game. im a bit hesitant too at the online play because the fact that every other game i've played online there's a ton of ppl who basically just play the game 12+ hrs a day and cheat, or talk **** or memorize everything. if the online thing is fun though i think that'll be the best lasting part of the game after all the solo A-spec and B-spec stuff is done.
right now i'm at L18 A and 8 B. id be WAY higher but have been putting more emphasis on 'leveling up' my social life rather than the game. :) plus itll always be there when i get home! playing on a 52" Sony W Bravia too so that's made the whole experience that much better. just bought/pimped out a F40 and won the ferrari race. a bit dissapointed to get a car i can buy from the dealership. a lot of cars you win you can buy, so i usually just end up selling those. bought a lot of used cars and used most, but that's been slowing down my progress too. ive been following the patterns of availiability in the used car section and some hardly ever come up, so ive been buying so i dont have to wait later on in the game.
in real life i bought a black BMW 2003 540i wagon m-sport. modded the intake to an AFE and the exhaust to a remus, probably due in part to this game and liking cars. now that they have ferrari/lambo i think i'll get better in telling the diff between the models when i see them here in this rich neighborhood where i work. saw a ferrari or lambo at lunch with 3 bunched low tailpipes. be fun to go home and look at the game and see if that car is available in the game!
anyways now that i know this thread exists i'll read the new posts (read all the old today) and chime in from time to time. maybe get some of your online names too so we can race!
pre ordered but didnt get any of the special packs. those are pretty cool and have some nice things but i'm more about the game itself. collectors editions of games to me are akin to special editions of DVDs where u don't really get much for the extra $ u are paying.
i havent raced online yet. i read in a review where you dont really get any rewards like points or $ for the RPG part of the game. im a bit hesitant too at the online play because the fact that every other game i've played online there's a ton of ppl who basically just play the game 12+ hrs a day and cheat, or talk **** or memorize everything. if the online thing is fun though i think that'll be the best lasting part of the game after all the solo A-spec and B-spec stuff is done.
right now i'm at L18 A and 8 B. id be WAY higher but have been putting more emphasis on 'leveling up' my social life rather than the game. :) plus itll always be there when i get home! playing on a 52" Sony W Bravia too so that's made the whole experience that much better. just bought/pimped out a F40 and won the ferrari race. a bit dissapointed to get a car i can buy from the dealership. a lot of cars you win you can buy, so i usually just end up selling those. bought a lot of used cars and used most, but that's been slowing down my progress too. ive been following the patterns of availiability in the used car section and some hardly ever come up, so ive been buying so i dont have to wait later on in the game.
in real life i bought a black BMW 2003 540i wagon m-sport. modded the intake to an AFE and the exhaust to a remus, probably due in part to this game and liking cars. now that they have ferrari/lambo i think i'll get better in telling the diff between the models when i see them here in this rich neighborhood where i work. saw a ferrari or lambo at lunch with 3 bunched low tailpipes. be fun to go home and look at the game and see if that car is available in the game!
anyways now that i know this thread exists i'll read the new posts (read all the old today) and chime in from time to time. maybe get some of your online names too so we can race!
Leoff
Sep 19, 10:39 AM
While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
Again, this string of responses has been talking about the MacBook, not the MacBookPro. Anyone buying a MacBook to do heavy graphics or processor-intensive stuff doesn't know what they're doing.
As soon as the new models of any Mac come out, the old models drop in price because they become refurbs.
The MacBookPro is still too new a release to have the major type of changes you and others are hoping for. All you're going to get for the next year or two is speed bumps and maybe an upgrade in HD capacity, Graphics card, or Optical Drive (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD)
Basically I see two types of users in here pleading for the newer chips: the average users who just "like the idea of fast" when it really does them no good, and the professionals who are consistantly holding out for something better. The professionals are few and far between.
No comments:
Post a Comment