Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'2010 Mac Pro: Speculation and whisperings, it's gonna be magical'

jjahshik32 said:
I find downloading content just fine because if you really like that movie and become a fan, you can buy the bluray for it. Also the movie industry will not go down at all, if anything helps them more with sales. This is the same perspective most software developers have as well (surprisingly).

I still have to pay for newsgroup services so its not totally free. I pay $24.95 a month from giganews for their unlimited service, which imo well worth it.

If you want to get into the "stealing" argument, Most people have done it or is DOING it.
Click to expand...

Somehow you are totally missing the point.

By paying GigaNews $25 a month does not make the action of downloading copyrighted material legal in any way.

It's also a ridiculously silly, not to mention flawed, argument saying just because other people have done it, makes it somewhat fine that you do it and therefore a social acceptable behavior.

Illegal is still illegal no matter how many do it.
 
Pressure said:
It's also a ridiculously silly, not to mention flawed, argument saying just because other people have done it, makes it somewhat fine that you do it and therefore a social acceptable behavior.

Illegal is still illegal no matter how many do it.
Click to expand...

As in speeding, everyone speeds in their cars or on motorbikes but if your caught your caught, your not going to tell a policeman 'but everyone does it' are you? You'd be totally stupid to do so.

Theft is theft, illegally downloading a film or music is theft, you did not pay for it it's theft.
Forget about the money that superstars get for making a film, instead think about the obscene amount of other people in the credits your stealing from.
 
jjahshik32 said:
I find downloading content just fine because if you really like that movie and become a fan, you can buy the bluray for it. Also the movie industry will not go down at all, if anything helps them more with sales. This is the same perspective most software developers have as well (surprisingly).
Click to expand...

What? No. Allowing your software to be pirated does NOT increase sales. Check out THIS article from a shareware software writer who works for Ambrosia.

As soon as they started implementing real copy protection, they saw a 5 fold increase in sales. When they implemented expiring licenses for "Snapz X", they found that nearly half of all people who upgraded attempted to do so with a pirated code. Ambrosia is now a big, successful software firm, and most of that, according to these numbers, is due to copy protection.

Piracy may help spread MUSIC around so the artists can make more when they TOUR, but as for movies and software (where home-release is the EOL), it's extremely counterproductive.


I know of a few people who pirate (*looks around innocently*) and the mindset that goes along with it. The fact is, if piracy weren't so easy or if it had real consequences, those people would indeed buy more. A lot more. I'm not just talking about "poor college students" who "can't afford it." I'm talking about middle/uppermiddle class people (especially doctors and lawyers, of all people) who just enjoy the convenience and saving a few bucks (even when they have it to spend).
 
apolloa said:
As in speeding, everyone speeds in their cars or on motorbikes but if your caught your caught, your not going to tell a policeman 'but everyone does it' are you? You'd be totally stupid to do so.

Theft is theft, illegally downloading a film or music is theft, you did not pay for it it's theft.
Forget about the money that superstars get for making a film, instead think about the obscene amount of other people in the credits your stealing from.
Click to expand...

Actually..

I got pulled over once on the highway. When the officer asked why I was spending, I told him I was going with the flow of traffic, which was true. He let me off :D

So it was kind of a "everyone else is doing it" situation.
 
from Hardmac:



Blizzard Entertainment just made a very disruptive announcement for all game developers and publishers that spend so much time creating complicated protection to prevent people (most of the time unsuccessfully) from pirating the programs sold. The criticize mostly restricting DRM systems like the ones developed by Ubisoft that prevent people from playing if they are not constantly connected to the Internet.

There will no such thing for Starcraft II. The game will require an internet connexion to activate the game and register the player on Battle.net, and it will be then possible to play the base game without being connected.
For them, the battle for new protections is always lost even before starting. There are too many people willing to break those protections, way more than developers creating them and so they never stay for long.
Blizzard decided to focus on the content of the game itself rather than spending too much energy protecting it.
 
apolloa said:
Theft is theft, illegally downloading a film or music is theft, you did not pay for it it's theft .
Click to expand...

My god you people are brainwashed. Downloading copyrighted material is not theft, it's copyright infringement. A civil offense, not a criminal offense. You cannot 'steal' something that is infinite.

What does this bs have to do with the new Mac pro?
 
Cindori said:
There will no such thing for Starcraft II. The game will require an internet connexion to activate the game and register the player on Battle.net, and it will be then possible to play the base game without being connected.
Click to expand...


This was mostly PR hype. 90+% of Starcraft2 games are going to be played online--on battle.net. THAT copy protection will still be in place and extremely (if not entirely) effective. Also, that's not to mention that activating on multiple computers (or while one computer is playing on battlenet) is probably going to disable the license code (Ala windows 7) and I'm sure they'll crack down on "[k]racks" with every update--probably even requiring a valid code for every update as well. This is akin to EA saying "yeah, we wont enforce copy protection for Battlefield Bad Company 2... Unless you play online or update" (they never said this, but it's actually the case). Also remember that for starcraft 1, you didn't even need to activate the product before you used it (though when playing online, it'd invalidate duplicated codes).

So yeah, they're saying they're allowing more freedom to get more press (mission accomplished). More freedom than what exactly?? There are some games that require you to be connected all the time, but those are typically games that are mostly single player. It's very easy for makers of an almost entirely multiplayer game like SC2 to say "oh yeah, single player mode can be pirated. We're sooo much cooler than those other meanie developers" with a big ****-eating grin on their faces, knowing that most people aren't going to play the single player much, and when they delve online, they're going to be banned immediately unless they pay for the game.
 
snsr said:
My god you people are brainwashed. Downloading copyrighted material is not theft, it's copyright infringement. A civil offense, not a criminal offense. You cannot 'steal' something that is infinite.
Click to expand...

Copyright infringement is copying someone else's work as your own. Theft is downloading a ripped DVD movie, SD or Blu-ray, that was illegally placed in an internet newsgroup with the sole purpose of watching the movie without paying for it. The copyright owner did not place that movie on the internet, and you can't braninwash yourself into thinking it's anything but stealing. And it is illegal, and punishable by jail time or fine if the authorities so desired to prosecute (which luckily they don't).

And no, it has nothing to do with the new Mac Pro, which I'm still waiting for, Blu-ray or no Blu-ray!
 
I cant wait for the new mac pro, I'm probably going to get the lowest end 12 core model if its reasonable in the GHz department unlike the 2.26GHz was or is.
 
I swear, if it's not the tired old BD argument, it's copyright infringement. And here I was thinking today I would come in to find an educated discussion regarding the actual topic of this thread :rolleyes:
 
I'm getting tired of waiting, I really need a computer.

What could I get that would be comparable performance wise with the 27" i7Mac, 16gb I had (it was great but died after 2 weeks.)

I run Logic in 64 bit. Is the current quad core MP going to be as fast as the imac? And why is the memory so much more expensive?

Anyone care to spec it out. Budget is circa £3000 but could be pushed a bit.
 
fearoftigers said:
I'm getting tired of waiting, I really need a computer.

What could I get that would be comparable performance wise with the 27" i7Mac, 16gb I had (it was great but died after 2 weeks.)

I run Logic in 64 bit. Is the current quad core MP going to be as fast as the imac? And why is the memory so much more expensive?

Anyone care to spec it out. Budget is circa £3000 but could be pushed a bit.
Click to expand...

Actually the current quad core MP would not be as fast as the quad core iMac's, unless you got the faster, much more expensive versions. The lynnfield chips in the iMac's have very aggressive turbo modes that bring the performance above the Mac Pro's.

The memory is so much more because it's ECC ram, which is not really something you even need.
 
TennisandMusic said:
Actually the current quad core MP would not be as fast as the quad core iMac's, unless you got the faster, much more expensive versions. The lynnfield chips in the iMac's have very aggressive turbo modes that bring the performance above the Mac Pro's.

The memory is so much more because it's ECC ram, which is not really something you even need.
Click to expand...

What if I went for the fastest quad then? 3.3 GHz I think.
 
fearoftigers said:
What if I went for the fastest quad then? 3.3 GHz I think.
Click to expand...

Overpriced. Hit it up with 2.93, call it a day. Unless you think that extra cash is justified spent on processing speed. If you spend all your £ on processing speed you'll be a bit disappointed; invest in memory or HDs or the like.

Also, buying memory third-party is a pretty good idea, along with hard drives.
 
Dr.Pants said:
Overpriced. Hit it up with 2.93, call it a day. Unless you think that extra cash is justified spent on processing speed. If you spend all your £ on processing speed you'll be a bit disappointed; invest in memory or HDs or the like.

Also, buying memory third-party is a pretty good idea, along with hard drives.
Click to expand...

So for me this is a screaming reason why Apple need to bring out and updated Mac Pro as compared to the iMac, they're just terrible value.
 
Dr.Pants said:
Overpriced. Hit it up with 2.93, call it a day. Unless you think that extra cash is justified spent on processing speed. If you spend all your £ on processing speed you'll be a bit disappointed; invest in memory or HDs or the like.

Also, buying memory third-party is a pretty good idea, along with hard drives.
Click to expand...

Agreed and...

fearoftigers said:
So for me this is a screaming reason why Apple need to bring out and updated Mac Pro as compared to the iMac, they're just terrible value.
Click to expand...

...Agreed.
 
calderone said:
Actually..

I got pulled over once on the highway. When the officer asked why I was spending, I told him I was going with the flow of traffic, which was true. He let me off :D

So it was kind of a "everyone else is doing it" situation.
Click to expand...

But if you were caught on your own it wouldn't have worked, or a traffic camera caught you.
And sorry for the comments but when someone just states it's fine to steal it winds me up.

fearoftigers said:
So for me this is a screaming reason why Apple need to bring out and updated Mac Pro as compared to the iMac, they're just terrible value.
Click to expand...

Well the imac will get a refresh too this year, just CPU and GPU I would imagine but you could get that? I still think we will see a new Mac Pro case with the new chips silently launched around WWDC time.
 
Dr.Pants said:
Overpriced. Hit it up with 2.93, call it a day. Unless you think that extra cash is justified spent on processing speed. If you spend all your £ on processing speed you'll be a bit disappointed; invest in memory or HDs or the like.

Also, buying memory third-party is a pretty good idea, along with hard drives.
Click to expand...

So would the 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon be faster than an i7 iMac?

Does it do hyperthreading and all that schizzle?
 
fearoftigers said:
So would the 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon be faster than an i7 iMac?

Does it do hyperthreading and all that schizzle?
Click to expand...

While the iMac can turboboost higher than the 2.93GHz processor used in the Mac Pro when one or two cores are in use overall the Mac Pro processor is faster. Yes it does hyperthreading and of course supports triple channel memory. Really looking at the processor differences between the quad cores used in the iMac and the 2.66 and 2.93 in the Mac Pro don't make much difference. Certainly not something to buy one system over the other for.
 
I think if there is no mention of a new MP at WWDC, there will be a great deal of unhappy campers here. To some extent I feel stuck, since I am invested in the OSX and related software more so than any windows programs I use. I will resist abandoning OSX until it becomes clear that MP is at the end of the line, which i do feel will eventually come the way things are progressing. I do think other Apple Mac customers will start to migrate away if June comes and goes with no Mac pro. Maybe Apple doesn't care if they do at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back