Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 18, 06:04 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works), that's right...
alexf
Aug 29, 11:30 AM
Shame on you, Apple. Corporate greed wins again - so what else is new?
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
At least this report should get them moving... It took publicity to get them to finally start their iPod and expanded computer recycling program; had nobody said anything then these programs would probably not exist.
Thanks to Greenpeace, Apple will hopefully belatedly get its act together.
SLR2009
Jun 19, 10:08 PM
I've been getting dropped calls on my Iphone 3GS as well but it's gotten much worse over the last few months. It's gotten so bad that I'm hesitating in purchasing an Iphone 4G and was considering very strongly in switching over to a droid phone. AT&T's dropped calls are unacceptable.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
Insilin1i
Feb 24, 08:10 AM
Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 05:28 PM
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft.
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
Well I think the original argument was not about Apple copying MSs success. I think we all agree that indeed MS got extremely lucky (but also showed a lot of skill and ruthlessness in exploiting that luck). However, the original argument was more about whether Mac OS would enjoy a higher market share if it were open to PCs. It probably would if Apple supported only "certified systems" to avoid driver issues. In any case, it is extremly unlikely that this is going to happen and therefore pure, rather meaningless speculation. :)
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 02:31 PM
You can give a god any attributes you want.
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
D4F
Apr 28, 08:50 AM
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP’s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
*I'll add a hint just to make sure... Try connecting 4K PCs with eachother that are setup to perform one task (rendering station- aka render farms) that usually run for weeks/months at 100%. Go read about it. Doesn't hurt especially if you comment on it.
"Weta Digital uses HP’s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
*I'll add a hint just to make sure... Try connecting 4K PCs with eachother that are setup to perform one task (rendering station- aka render farms) that usually run for weeks/months at 100%. Go read about it. Doesn't hurt especially if you comment on it.
malexandria
Apr 15, 11:34 AM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:44 PM
trying to stick to facts...
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
OSX marketshare was just shy of 50 mill
That's Mac OS X installed base, not the installed base of Macs, as I said. Mac OS X is not the only Mac OS out there. Reading comprehension is fun!
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
Which means, of course, that you can't back up your claims with facts.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
So? That has nothing to do with your baseless claims about hackers.
milo
Sep 20, 11:39 AM
With FrontRow on the Mini it can act as a hub for the other computers in the network and play the movies via iTunes streaming.
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
Sure. And you're spending more to have two computers instead of one computer and one cheaper, simpler box.
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
If they can make it work, I don't see any reason why eyeTV live TV couldn't be paused via the iTV remote. There's no technical reason it wouldn't be possible, they'd just have to implement it. Same with buying iTunes content direct from iTV, they could certainly add the feature if they wanted to.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
That's an assumption on your part. How do you know that iTunes won't include HD content in the future? How do you know that people won't be able to stream HD content from other sources?
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
Link? And is the $300 buying the box, or is that a montly fee for some amount of time? Where is the mac support, the tivo site says they don't support it?
100Teraflops
Apr 21, 05:09 PM
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
<EDIT> I am gonna try to run this on my brothers 333 celeron on a 66MHZ bus with 320 RAM, I know my 933 is not the fastest, but maybe it just found its competition. :) </EDIT>
I had a friend run my C# implementation on his 333MHz Celeron o/c'ed to 375MHz. His result was 108085. *GASP!* 375 MHz Celeron BEATS 933MHz PowerPC G4 (no L2/L3). This is interesting.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
gatekpr
Jun 8, 09:35 AM
I jailbroke my iPhone 3GS and switched to T-mobile. I haven't had ONE dropped call since I did that in November. The edge network is a little slower, but well worth the switch. I could never use the 3G in Houston anyway. Sad, the 4th largest city in the nation and I would get 5-10 dropped calls a day. It was worse with the Blackberry Bold--you can't turn off the 3G, so it would drop incessantly.
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
I'm excited about the iPhone 4, my sources tell me they already have a jailbreak for it. I'm excited!
ryme4reson
Oct 11, 02:14 AM
If you know about programming languages, and still refuse to accept the scores on the test, check this out:
Here is the code snippet in question: (C not java, for the sqrt function)
double x1,x2,x3 ;
Here is the code snippet in question: (C not java, for the sqrt function)
double x1,x2,x3 ;
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
CMMac
Apr 12, 09:41 AM
Really interesting thread for me, as i'm a "soon to be" switcher.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
Abulia
Sep 29, 11:03 AM
No.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
Not helpful and wrong.
The most efficent use of the riser slots are dual rank FB-DIMMs and 4 of them. So 4 1GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks.
Four FB-DIMMs is the sweet spot between memory bandwidth and latency, based on tests.
No comments:
Post a Comment