kristianmoss
Apr 20, 06:53 AM
Okay
So my problem is that I have found this code (C++) that uses both OpenCV and WxWindows. It's not my program but an OpenSource program that i'm trying to write a small plugin for.
But I have no idea how to get Xcode to recognise the headers for these two programs.
I'm pretty sure that I have installed them both correctly, but I still get these issues:
'wx/wx.h' file not found
'cv.h' file not found
'wx/wxprec.h' file not found.
I have not been able to find any help on that is related to Xcode 4, so I'm hoping you can help me.
So my problem is that I have found this code (C++) that uses both OpenCV and WxWindows. It's not my program but an OpenSource program that i'm trying to write a small plugin for.
But I have no idea how to get Xcode to recognise the headers for these two programs.
I'm pretty sure that I have installed them both correctly, but I still get these issues:
'wx/wx.h' file not found
'cv.h' file not found
'wx/wxprec.h' file not found.
I have not been able to find any help on that is related to Xcode 4, so I'm hoping you can help me.
Eriden
Apr 5, 09:22 AM
Hasn't Apple always been known for producing systems usable by the Everyman? Whereas the ubermenschen were off using UNIX systems at first, followed by Linux, Apple computers have always appealed to those who wanted to pick up a computer and start working, without technology getting in the way, at least since the Macintosh...
skunk
Feb 18, 10:56 AM
It does not look like the NE picture was actually of SJ at all.
citizenzen
Apr 3, 12:16 PM
If states went into deficits because people didn't have enough money to pay their taxes how will raising taxes solve this problem?
Where do you come up with the idea that people don't have enough money to pay their taxes? :confused:
Where do you come up with the idea that people don't have enough money to pay their taxes? :confused:
more...
Ish
Mar 12, 10:01 AM
I liked the first one much better. The angle and the background just don't work for me on this one.
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
DeaconGraves
May 5, 12:49 PM
I do find it funny that Microsoft continues to make the comparison via specs alone, when design is a huge factor too, especially when it comes to notebooks.
I can't say I've used every Windows notebook out there, but I've come across several that had absolutely loathsome designs. My MBP was out of comission for a week once and I borrowed my sister's HP laptop. Specwise they were probably about the same, but the trackpad on the HP was one of the worst things I had ever used. The laptop was also thicker and heavier than my MBP, and the screen hinge was a lot stiffer, meaning that it took a bit more effort to open it up when it wanted to use it.
If you compare pure specs, Apple does come off as more expensive. But the design I'm paying for is definitely worth the difference.
I can't say I've used every Windows notebook out there, but I've come across several that had absolutely loathsome designs. My MBP was out of comission for a week once and I borrowed my sister's HP laptop. Specwise they were probably about the same, but the trackpad on the HP was one of the worst things I had ever used. The laptop was also thicker and heavier than my MBP, and the screen hinge was a lot stiffer, meaning that it took a bit more effort to open it up when it wanted to use it.
If you compare pure specs, Apple does come off as more expensive. But the design I'm paying for is definitely worth the difference.
more...
jiminaus
Apr 20, 07:28 AM
Where have you installed OpenCV and wxWidgets? Are they frameworks or dylib libraries? Have you added the framework or dylib to the Link Binary with Libraries build phase of your target? If they're dylibs, have you additionally added the path(s) to the header files to the Header Search Paths build setting of your target?
BBC B 32k
Oct 17, 05:01 PM
Either in Regent St. on friday night or MacExpo on sat.
Was in Apple Store last monday to get ipod touch but they had sold out. trawled london and got the last one at Micro Anvica :D
Was in Apple Store last monday to get ipod touch but they had sold out. trawled london and got the last one at Micro Anvica :D
more...
SRSound
Oct 16, 10:35 PM
One model is expected to be a "smart phone" with integrated keyboard, video and music capabilities...
YESSSSS please come out with an Apple iPod+PDA+Cell w/ QWERTY device - i would buy this in a second!
YESSSSS please come out with an Apple iPod+PDA+Cell w/ QWERTY device - i would buy this in a second!
pbh444
Mar 27, 09:01 PM
I scored two 32GB iPad1s from Verizon on Friday in South Portland Maine.
I kept check the online site all day in case the local Verizon store was out, but the Verizon online prices were still at the pre-sale price. ($529, $629, $729).
I just noticed now (Sunday, 9 PM EDT) that the Verizon online iPad LANDING page states that the iPad1-Mifi combos begin at $429 ($100 less than Friday). However, when you click on "Build" package, you are taken to the page with the OLD (pre-sale) prices.
Maybe they are waiting until Monday AM to fix the "build" page, but you can RIGHT now short circuit it and jump right to the individual combo package pages.
16GB-mifi $429
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=165
32GB-mifi $529
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=166
16GB-mifi $629
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=167
The Wifi only versions will probably NOT be offered online.
It is also my assumption is that these prices will NOT be available in the stores, because when I scored my two 32GB wifi only, the clerk told me that there was not a SINGLE mifi to be had in the state of Maine.
I kept check the online site all day in case the local Verizon store was out, but the Verizon online prices were still at the pre-sale price. ($529, $629, $729).
I just noticed now (Sunday, 9 PM EDT) that the Verizon online iPad LANDING page states that the iPad1-Mifi combos begin at $429 ($100 less than Friday). However, when you click on "Build" package, you are taken to the page with the OLD (pre-sale) prices.
Maybe they are waiting until Monday AM to fix the "build" page, but you can RIGHT now short circuit it and jump right to the individual combo package pages.
16GB-mifi $429
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=165
32GB-mifi $529
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=166
16GB-mifi $629
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=167
The Wifi only versions will probably NOT be offered online.
It is also my assumption is that these prices will NOT be available in the stores, because when I scored my two 32GB wifi only, the clerk told me that there was not a SINGLE mifi to be had in the state of Maine.
more...
j_maddison
Mar 19, 04:44 PM
wtf?
4 years ago my brother (parents) had to pay $2000 for his "tablet PC" from HP in highschool.
This works out to what, $470 a piece? Give me a break.
The iPad is not a tablet PC. You can still pay $2,000 for a tablet PC if you want. The iPad is a tablet yes, but it doesn't run a full blown deskptop OS (I'm not getting into that argument).
My point is, Apple used to offer excellent discounts to students and teachers across all of it's product ranges. It's a shame they're not offering the same with the iPad.
4 years ago my brother (parents) had to pay $2000 for his "tablet PC" from HP in highschool.
This works out to what, $470 a piece? Give me a break.
The iPad is not a tablet PC. You can still pay $2,000 for a tablet PC if you want. The iPad is a tablet yes, but it doesn't run a full blown deskptop OS (I'm not getting into that argument).
My point is, Apple used to offer excellent discounts to students and teachers across all of it's product ranges. It's a shame they're not offering the same with the iPad.
surf2snow1
Mar 24, 05:48 PM
I just got off the phone with sale rep, and all they have is 32gb and 64gb left. When asked about the price, she said $500 for 32gb (??). I mentioned the article and she still said $500. Weird? Is there an official link to this somewhere on the verizon site, as all I can see is it bundled with mifi @ 429.99 (16gb).
My store knew about the price drop and they had the price tag on the display updated. At the bottom of the price sheet that shows the iPad2 and iPad1 prices, it showed 299/399/499 for the different models. My guess is if you buy it in store, it should ring up at the lower price.
My store knew about the price drop and they had the price tag on the display updated. At the bottom of the price sheet that shows the iPad2 and iPad1 prices, it showed 299/399/499 for the different models. My guess is if you buy it in store, it should ring up at the lower price.
more...
im_to_hyper
Jun 9, 03:52 PM
Hey, at this point you are probably best off going with Ebay or Craigslist. I can offer you a best offer of $185 and can pay ASAP.
thisisahughes
Mar 25, 01:42 AM
that almost makes me feel bad for selling a 16gb wi-fi only for $375 last week. Oh well...i'm over it.
+1
+1
more...
MacRumors
Sep 25, 09:48 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple is hosting a Special Event (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060914090209.shtml) today at Photokina. The invite-only media event was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060821202913.shtml) in late August after members of the UK Press received invitations.
Details on the media event have been particularly scarce, but it is believed the event is currently taking place in Colonge, Germany.
There does not appear to be any live coverage for this event on the web. We will provide links or updates as they are received.
Apple is hosting a Special Event (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060914090209.shtml) today at Photokina. The invite-only media event was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060821202913.shtml) in late August after members of the UK Press received invitations.
Details on the media event have been particularly scarce, but it is believed the event is currently taking place in Colonge, Germany.
There does not appear to be any live coverage for this event on the web. We will provide links or updates as they are received.
VAmin
Nov 22, 07:42 AM
Wouldn't using the "extra" electricity to power fans to decrease heat lead to less "extra" electricity???? :rolleyes: I hope they really think this through - and I'm sure they will. Of course powering fans isn't the only use for electricity.
Using the electricity to power fans would actually improve the efficiency if the thermoelectric device is placed between the processor and the fan. This would increase the thermal gradient and generate more power than if you were relying solely on heat dissipation to get your gradient.
The only problem with this solution is that high efficiency thermoelectric materials, by design, have low thermal conductivities, so it would not be a good idea to place this between the chip and the heat sink.
I am also skeptical about the claim of 30% efficiency. If we had thermoelectric materials that operated at that efficiency, we could all say goodbye to refrigerator compressors and turbine generators in favor of devices with no moving parts, higher reliability, and no CFCs.
Using the electricity to power fans would actually improve the efficiency if the thermoelectric device is placed between the processor and the fan. This would increase the thermal gradient and generate more power than if you were relying solely on heat dissipation to get your gradient.
The only problem with this solution is that high efficiency thermoelectric materials, by design, have low thermal conductivities, so it would not be a good idea to place this between the chip and the heat sink.
I am also skeptical about the claim of 30% efficiency. If we had thermoelectric materials that operated at that efficiency, we could all say goodbye to refrigerator compressors and turbine generators in favor of devices with no moving parts, higher reliability, and no CFCs.
more...
ftaok
Apr 1, 02:01 PM
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?Then perhaps you'd be one of the ones that would end up paying less. However, if you think the channels you keep would remain unchanged, I think you'd be disappointed. Get ready for sitcoms, reality shows, and political pundits 24/7.
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.You're right that it's irrelevant, but not because of where the money comes from. It's irrelevant because it won't happen any time soon. There's no support for ALC from any group other than consumers. The Democrats don't want ALC because it will hurt diversity in programming. The Republicans don't want ALC because they see it as interfering with a free market. The cable companies don't want ALC because it involves change and may hurt their bottom line. The networks don't want ALC because it would mean fewer channels/less profits. People who work in the TV industry don't want ALC because they may lose their jobs.
Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.
BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.Just because a channel can't garner enough subscribers doesn't mean it's crap. Look at the stuff these days that get the ratings. This is what cable TV may be reduced to if forced to go ALC.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.You're right that it's irrelevant, but not because of where the money comes from. It's irrelevant because it won't happen any time soon. There's no support for ALC from any group other than consumers. The Democrats don't want ALC because it will hurt diversity in programming. The Republicans don't want ALC because they see it as interfering with a free market. The cable companies don't want ALC because it involves change and may hurt their bottom line. The networks don't want ALC because it would mean fewer channels/less profits. People who work in the TV industry don't want ALC because they may lose their jobs.
Yeah because being hard headed and refusing to change with the times has done so well for us as a country (Car Industry, housing market, manufacturing process, infrastructure improvements, etc)....I'm not saying that ALC is bad; some days, I'm on your side. I flip flop on this all the time because there are such goodsides and downsides to this. Change can be good, but there are always unintended consequences to change. In the end, it's just TV, so there's nothing earth shattering. Just good, honest debate.
BTW, this has gotten way off topic. Sorry.
ddrueckhammer
Mar 27, 10:37 AM
Jobs: I have to go to the bathroom. Is that alright?
Schmidt: (Frisks Jobs Crotch)
Barista: I frisked him. He's Clean.
Jobs casually walks to the restroom.
Job walks back to table and casually sits down.
(In Italian)
Schmidt: Do you feel better?
Jobs: Yes.
Schmidt: Stevey, you understand me don't you? You're italian, just like your father. You're Sick. When you feel better, we'll arrange a meeting and everything will be alright. This meanness must come to an end.
Jobs shifts his eyes around the room. Jumps up and shoots Schmidt three times.
Schmidt: (Frisks Jobs Crotch)
Barista: I frisked him. He's Clean.
Jobs casually walks to the restroom.
Job walks back to table and casually sits down.
(In Italian)
Schmidt: Do you feel better?
Jobs: Yes.
Schmidt: Stevey, you understand me don't you? You're italian, just like your father. You're Sick. When you feel better, we'll arrange a meeting and everything will be alright. This meanness must come to an end.
Jobs shifts his eyes around the room. Jumps up and shoots Schmidt three times.
iLucas
Apr 24, 09:09 PM
Where is the best place to sell a 64GB iPad non-3G? I tried eBay and twice now someone did buy it now and couldn't pay right away... It's very very lightly used all I'm trying to do is get what I paid for it, any recommendations would be a huge help... I tried Mac forums as well, is there a new site everyone's using nowadays?
Local craigslist (http://craigslist.org)? Ebay is getting terrible to sell on in my opinion because you have to pay them something like 9% now when you sell an item. With craigslist you meet them in person to guarantee they pay or they do not get the item.
Local craigslist (http://craigslist.org)? Ebay is getting terrible to sell on in my opinion because you have to pay them something like 9% now when you sell an item. With craigslist you meet them in person to guarantee they pay or they do not get the item.
LIVEFRMNYC
Dec 27, 09:43 PM
It is not like these thieves would be waiting til the holidays to use this info.
You can't be serious. The Holiday season is when online fraud is at it's peak, especially in places like NYC.
You can't be serious. The Holiday season is when online fraud is at it's peak, especially in places like NYC.
AppleScruff1
May 2, 12:57 PM
This is truly breaking news.
NoSmokingBandit
Jun 14, 05:30 PM
It does seem superfluous to have 3 ports now that wifi is (finally) built in and Kinect has its own port.
Joshuarocks
Apr 14, 02:20 PM
Based on some of the posts in this one forum, it seems that most are coming from loud mouth teens who know nothing, or just want to say something for the hell of it. Geez!
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.