baryon
Apr 10, 08:22 AM
I'm all in for something new in Video Editing. I find that FCP is way too old and clunky, and Premiere is the same thing with a better interface. I rarely use the Viewer anymore, and I hate having to render. I hate the various pixel aspect ratios and formats there are, including PAL and NTSC. I still think tape cameras are the best in quality, but the practicality of recording on a card or a hard drive will soon beat that.
There has to be a performance and workflow improvement, as syncing sound to video precisely is near impossible due to the huge amounts of lag.
This sounds like an interesting update!
There has to be a performance and workflow improvement, as syncing sound to video precisely is near impossible due to the huge amounts of lag.
This sounds like an interesting update!
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 09:50 AM
So i'm wondering, if the standard cars are indeed copy/pasted from GT4, then what about the new standard cars they will be adding (like updated models from the past 5 years)? Obviously the ps3 can handle higher poly models, so surely they wouldn't build new models then scale them down to match gt4... That would be idiotic.
As I understand it, all of the Standard� cars are using the models from GT4 and GT PSP. The models used in those 2 games are basically the same. GT PSP had well over 800 cars itself, and came out just last year, so it has quite a few newer models. So, subtract a few from the lists of those 2 games for the cars that have been updated to Premium� status, and you could still have well over 800 Standard� cars, as they say it will have. To me, that seems like the most likely solution that they've done.
As I understand it, all of the Standard� cars are using the models from GT4 and GT PSP. The models used in those 2 games are basically the same. GT PSP had well over 800 cars itself, and came out just last year, so it has quite a few newer models. So, subtract a few from the lists of those 2 games for the cars that have been updated to Premium� status, and you could still have well over 800 Standard� cars, as they say it will have. To me, that seems like the most likely solution that they've done.
fraserdrew
Aug 6, 04:12 PM
Vista is also 6 months out, prob more. This is no different then when Apple released 10.0. There WAS a reason 10.1 was free to 10.0 users. Microsoft will get this cleaned up over the 18+ months it takes Apple to come out with 10.6. Leopard has to go the distance and I two have been using Vista inhouse since early Alpha's for internal app testing. Its come a long way. It still has a long way to go still but the core IS there. MS simply needs to bug fix the heck out of it. Which will happen within 2-4 months of release with SP1 and then SP2 another 6 months after that.
I'm not a long time apple user, and don't know about the classic to OS X transition, but i do know that 2 service packs and bug fixes every month did nothing to XP, hence my move to OS X. So, ok i assumed that this will be the same case with vista, but considering the fact that (i think) concept viruses have already been written, and that microsoft really are up against the clock; i think that for at least the first year vista will be hellish.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
I'm not a long time apple user, and don't know about the classic to OS X transition, but i do know that 2 service packs and bug fixes every month did nothing to XP, hence my move to OS X. So, ok i assumed that this will be the same case with vista, but considering the fact that (i think) concept viruses have already been written, and that microsoft really are up against the clock; i think that for at least the first year vista will be hellish.
After that, ok, maybe things will change, but it seems to me that this isn't the biggest upgrade ever (i'm an end user, and mainly use PC's for web-browsing and school work, so i haven't seen any major good things in vista) and microsoft have struggled to get it out. (sorry kinda off topic)
misterniall
Nov 29, 07:10 AM
Perhaps we should all get a rebate for every crappy album ever released by Universal. I really want some of the stuff that these record execs are smoking, on top law suits and strong arm tactics now they expect to get money from every iPod not because the have provided any service or contributed in anyway to the product. Rather, they just want it. Hell, who doesn't ... I would also like to get in on this deal. Please Apple/Microsoft/SanDisk I would like to get $0.50 for every unit you sell. Sign me up. I think it is time that artists really evaluated the balance of power. I think it is time that artists should reevaluate the distrubution of wealth in the recording industry. Perhaps that lost money isn't due to pirating like the execs want you to think.
Free money always welcome.
Free money always welcome.
Dr Kevorkian94
Apr 25, 01:48 PM
i love my country we sue everybody! some people are just idiots, they odiously think they can win or they wouldn't spend the legal fees. like others have said android does the same thing but then sends the info to google. and from what i heard its not your actual location just the coordinates of the cell tower you are connected to. i wonder if you turn location services off it will still do that, because there might be some terms and condition someone didn't read lol. but this is a little out of control the situation is generalized to the point where it is being betray like they are tracking you by GPS at every second. cant wait to see how this turns out.
emotion
Jul 20, 11:25 AM
Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P
For an individual customer Apple are actually quite large. They are also high profile.
For an individual customer Apple are actually quite large. They are also high profile.
chubad
Aug 11, 07:37 PM
If Apple makes a phone, I will order one on the spot. If the interface is as well thought out and simple as the iPod, then it will be a smash hit.:D
BoRegardless
Mar 26, 10:42 AM
OS evolution is like classifying cats by size.
Each one gets a bit bigger, but they are still cats.
The only time I would be excited, literally, about a MAJOR release is if they went to an OS which was slated to be described by Canines.
Then I would be reasonably assured something astounding was coming.
Each one gets a bit bigger, but they are still cats.
The only time I would be excited, literally, about a MAJOR release is if they went to an OS which was slated to be described by Canines.
Then I would be reasonably assured something astounding was coming.
amin
Sep 14, 10:53 PM
I have noticed this emphasis as well; not being an expert on this issue myself though, would you care to shed light on how their coverage is an exaggeration and why we shouldn't be worried about it?
I am no expert, and I am not denying that this issue matters. However, I see no cause for concern unless someone provides some decent evidence that it matters. It strikes me as odd that they (at AnandTech) put so much emphasis on explaining the theory behind a "problem" without making any competent effort at illustrating an example of the problem. When you go to configure a Mac Pro, the Apple page says the following about memory: "Mac Pro uses 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory, a new industry-standard memory technology that allows for more memory capacity, higher speeds, and better reliability. To take full advantage of the 256-bit wide memory architecture, four or more FB-DIMMs should be installed in Mac Pro." Yet AnandTech chose a 1GB x 2 RAM arrangement to compare the Core 2 Extreme and Xeon processors. Using this setup, which effectively cripples the Mac Pro memory system, they find it to be at worst 10% slower than the Conroe Extreme (in a single non real world usage benchmark). Meanwhile in any comparison that utilizes the four cores, the quad Xeon whoops ass by a large margin.
I am no expert, and I am not denying that this issue matters. However, I see no cause for concern unless someone provides some decent evidence that it matters. It strikes me as odd that they (at AnandTech) put so much emphasis on explaining the theory behind a "problem" without making any competent effort at illustrating an example of the problem. When you go to configure a Mac Pro, the Apple page says the following about memory: "Mac Pro uses 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory, a new industry-standard memory technology that allows for more memory capacity, higher speeds, and better reliability. To take full advantage of the 256-bit wide memory architecture, four or more FB-DIMMs should be installed in Mac Pro." Yet AnandTech chose a 1GB x 2 RAM arrangement to compare the Core 2 Extreme and Xeon processors. Using this setup, which effectively cripples the Mac Pro memory system, they find it to be at worst 10% slower than the Conroe Extreme (in a single non real world usage benchmark). Meanwhile in any comparison that utilizes the four cores, the quad Xeon whoops ass by a large margin.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 19, 01:23 AM
1.83 GHz and 2 GHz Core 2 Duos for the MacBook, 2.16 GHz and 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duos for the MacBook Pro. Simple. And an MR X1800 (XT?)/ Go 7800 (GTX?) for the MacBook Pro!
suneohair
Sep 13, 06:26 PM
clock speed isn't everything. workload dependant of course.
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
Another example would be this: Today Apple decides to go back to plain, bulky ipods, no color, no photos. Just monochrome and music. Would anybody go for it? Probably not. You just can't step back in tech today.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the octo core would out perform the current quad anyday given the right apps. But when people see that Ghz number go down...
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
Another example would be this: Today Apple decides to go back to plain, bulky ipods, no color, no photos. Just monochrome and music. Would anybody go for it? Probably not. You just can't step back in tech today.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the octo core would out perform the current quad anyday given the right apps. But when people see that Ghz number go down...
Glen Quagmire
Aug 23, 03:32 PM
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.
In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.
tartufo
Apr 12, 08:27 AM
I am Sorry but I have to say something here. your ignorance amuses me.
miranda lambert tattoo on arm.
miranda lambert and blake
miranda lambert tattoo on arm.
Facts: This is also Miranda#39;s
Miranda Lambert Official Site
miranda lambert tattoo on arm.
OutThere
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Can you really blame them? They won't have a purpose in life without Birtherism.
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 10:46 AM
but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)
No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
ergle2
Sep 20, 03:51 PM
Umm. What happened in here?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
Can we reurn to some common respect please? This spat isn't constructive.
True enough.
I ... well, I won't go there, too likely to throw more fuel on the fire.
I'll drop it if she does, fair enough?
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 25, 04:38 PM
Why should Location Services stop your phone from logging cell tower information, the same information your cell company logs?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
The smart complainers rather. I don't think people would have the same issue if Apple collected X amount of data, and deleted it after X time. The issue is that it's stored forever, so people panic.
If it kept it for the same length as Android, and continued to NOT be sent to Apple, I don't see how this is any worse than any other phone's logging that occurs.
Apple doesn't receive data(as far as we know), 'Droid does. Yet Apple is the bad guy simply because it's unencrypted and not truncated. If they did those two fixes, anyone with any notion about the topic would be able to see that it's not a big deal.
Then again, how concerned are you that someone will know what cell phone towers you were near, or which Wi-Fi hot spots were around you on whatever day?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
The smart complainers rather. I don't think people would have the same issue if Apple collected X amount of data, and deleted it after X time. The issue is that it's stored forever, so people panic.
If it kept it for the same length as Android, and continued to NOT be sent to Apple, I don't see how this is any worse than any other phone's logging that occurs.
Apple doesn't receive data(as far as we know), 'Droid does. Yet Apple is the bad guy simply because it's unencrypted and not truncated. If they did those two fixes, anyone with any notion about the topic would be able to see that it's not a big deal.
Then again, how concerned are you that someone will know what cell phone towers you were near, or which Wi-Fi hot spots were around you on whatever day?
n00bst3r
Sep 18, 11:51 PM
The thing is Apple is shooting itself in the foot because it knows that all the Prosumers research enough that they know there is better available. Apple is losing alot of sales by not being prepared. I would think that Apple would get 2nd priority to Dell on shipments so they should have a good stock of C2D.
canucksfan88
Mar 26, 03:44 PM
does anyone else thing launchpad is the worst idea yet?
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 03:27 AM
This kind of thinking is truly lame, just buy a Dell and go for penis enlargement surgury with the money you saved. No one will know the difference.
Not lame. Childish. I mean seriously. Is your (Generic your.) MBP any slower the day after they announce Core 2 MBPs? I swear to god it's almost as if people's lives are so incomplete that they need to feel special by having the top of the dog pile hardware. I received my MBP on Feb 21st at 10:30AM. Apple can do whatever they want. I'll still be enjoying my Mac at the same level I did on the 21st.
Not lame. Childish. I mean seriously. Is your (Generic your.) MBP any slower the day after they announce Core 2 MBPs? I swear to god it's almost as if people's lives are so incomplete that they need to feel special by having the top of the dog pile hardware. I received my MBP on Feb 21st at 10:30AM. Apple can do whatever they want. I'll still be enjoying my Mac at the same level I did on the 21st.
TrollToddington
Apr 6, 01:21 PM
You can't please everyone with a tiny 11" or 13" machine. I think people on here expect far too much from such a small package. If you want the best of all worlds go and get the uber 15" with 256GB SSD. If you pay anything less you are in for a compromise.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
EGT
Nov 29, 06:28 AM
I was waiting for this to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. (Go Steve!)
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
Bloody Universal. :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment