or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 OK. 1.  If the current common uses are hardware limited, then that is a trivially obvious observation. 2.  Follows from (1). 3.  An assertion, and the one that was originally disputed based on the historical evidence that hardware advances have always driven new applications and uses.  We have seen this continuously even in the evolution of the smartphone.  Why would it mysteriously stop now?  This appears to be simply imagination failure on your part. 4.  Yes - we know...
 Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that.  Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue. 
 Yes - perhaps some are doing that and they are easy targets, but it's the others, who are not, that you are dodging.
 If your original comment seems to be being ignored, it's because your subsequent comments demand more attention.  Either you are really bad at communicating your points or (as I suspect), you are actually quite good at communicating but your arguments are flawed, so you are spending way too much time trying to move the goalposts when that is pointed out.
 Do you really need an example, or are you just dodging the issue?  Are you actually arguing that hardware advances have not always driven software development to take advantage of the hardware?  There is clearly plenty of room for increased processing power in smartphones and tablets, whether for advanced imaging/image processing or more futuristic developments such as onboard speech recognition.
Exactly. Phil is completely free to express his opinion, and the network is completely free to decide that his choice to express that opinion is incompatible with their business model. If there was a contract then there may be a settlement, but freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from any consequences of what one chooses to say. Either way, this is a civil matter, and the assertion that it has thought police connotations is, indeed, silly.
Looks to me that you simply have no concept of what this machine is for or how it will be used, and you are way too slippery for me to be interested in continuing this discussion.
OK, but that is just your completely arbitrary definition of what needs to be in the box to make a pro machine. And based, in my opinion (and, presumably, Apple's), on an outdated paradigm. In what sense is the new machine more RAM-limited? It's only storage limited by your narrow definition of storage. How many users ever did core upgrades?
Desktop workstations and servers are different animals. To argue that the new Mac Pro (a desktop) is not really pro because it is not a server is a non sequitur. Adding the assertion that it targets the prosumer demographic doesn't change that, and doesn't seem likely anyway - what kind of prosumer needs the performance or expense of the Mac Pro? This is clearly targeted at high-end video work, although we will probably buy a number of them for 2 and 3D simulation and...
 If the Mac Pro were a server that comment might make some sense.
New Posts  All Forums: