Tom, by my interpretation, the Mac Pro is just due for update next year. Tim Cook already said to the pros that they have something really great planned. By my interpretation, that sounds like a totally changed Mac Pro.
But I understand where it might not even involve a Mac Pro. We'll see.
Really? It was about October/November last year there was huge speculations it wasn't going to get another refresh. Then no refresh was announced at WWDC this year
(2012-09-01, 03:00 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]IIRC, Apple are dropping the Mac pro in the next 18 months. It's been behind the times for a long time now. Their iMac will be their main desktop. People don't buy big powerhouse PC's anymore, and those that do just build them. There is no need for a sexy 24 core machine these days.
Well maya and autocad still like it
Almost forgot my own program i use daily for work: Adobe premiere pro cs6.
But yeah memory is more important then CPU cores for these tasks (meaning a 2 core compatible server board is quite nice).
Yeah, but if you were one of those select few who needed it, you'd build it yourself. It's not really economically viable for a retailer to stock such powerful machines in the hope that one in one million customers buys it.
I have been watching that first video for about 2 minutes and I already have a problem with it.
He states that to be "property" it must be "rivalrous" (IE: If one person is using it, another can't), otherwise it isn't property. This guy really isn't looking at the principle of IP properly. The whole IDEA of IP is it stops one company simply implementing the idea of another company as direct competition.
The whole point is, the LAW makes sure the idea can only be used by one company at any one point in time. The physical practicality of this is not the point.
This guy has missed the entire meaning of the word. It is not stating it is ACTUALLY property, it is simulating the benefits of property for an idea.
(2012-09-01, 03:00 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]There is no need for a sexy 24 core machine these days.
maybe for most households, but a serious gamer wants it, though they will build their own most often. however, my work uses them and larger all the time. 24 core+hyperthreading, 4TB storage, 96GB ram or more is not uncommon as our primary workhorses
Ya, a lot industries use very powerful computers now. This is why you can find higher end machines from the likes of dell and hp still.
(2012-09-01, 11:05 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]I have been watching that first video for about 2 minutes and I already have a problem with it.
He states that to be "property" it must be "rivalrous" (IE: If one person is using it, another can't), otherwise it isn't property. This guy really isn't looking at the principle of IP properly. The whole IDEA of IP is it stops one company simply implementing the idea of another company as direct competition.
The whole point is, the LAW makes sure the idea can only be used by one company at any one point in time. The physical practicality of this is not the point.
This guy has missed the entire meaning of the word. It is not stating it is ACTUALLY property, it is simulating the benefits of property for an idea.
actually, I don't think you quite understand the video then. he's speaking intellectually about IP being a fallacy.
it is true though, that to be actual property, one cannot own it/use it at the same time as another human being.
IP and patents dates back to monarchies and tyrants as legal monopolies and privileges.
(2012-09-02, 12:57 AM)Shemo Wrote: [ -> ] (2012-09-01, 11:05 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]I have been watching that first video for about 2 minutes and I already have a problem with it.
He states that to be "property" it must be "rivalrous" (IE: If one person is using it, another can't), otherwise it isn't property. This guy really isn't looking at the principle of IP properly. The whole IDEA of IP is it stops one company simply implementing the idea of another company as direct competition.
The whole point is, the LAW makes sure the idea can only be used by one company at any one point in time. The physical practicality of this is not the point.
This guy has missed the entire meaning of the word. It is not stating it is ACTUALLY property, it is simulating the benefits of property for an idea.
actually, I don't think you quite understand the video then. he's speaking intellectually about IP being a fallacy.
it is true though, that to be actual property, one cannot own it/use it at the same time as another human being.
IP and patents dates back to monarchies and tyrants as legal monopolies and privileges.
IP isn't a fallacy, it's just the name of the law. The law simply simulates the benefits of property. They could have called it "idea protecting" and it would have done the same. That guy took the name literally, instead of looking at it as an idea.