<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Perspective &#8212; Not a Review &#8212; on the Mac Pro</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/</link>
	<description>Tech Commentaries From Best-Selllng Author Gene Steinberg</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:44:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1252</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1252</guid>
		<description>What is needed (not by mobile-using me) is something in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro.  Then again, Apple&#039;s long had this same hold in their lineup, and they do okay.

For me, I&#039;m waiting on a reliable Intel-powered Mac laptop.  After three MacBooks, I won&#039;t try a fourth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/firefox.png' title='Firefox 1.5.0.6' style='border:0px;' alt='Firefox 1.5.0.6'/> <a href='http://mozilla.org' title='Firefox 1.5.0.6' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 1.5.0.6</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/win.png' title='Windows XP' style='border:0px;' alt='Windows XP'/> Windows XP<p>What is needed (not by mobile-using me) is something in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro.  Then again, Apple&#8217;s long had this same hold in their lineup, and they do okay.</p>
<p>For me, I&#8217;m waiting on a reliable Intel-powered Mac laptop.  After three MacBooks, I won&#8217;t try a fourth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dana Sutton</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1251</link>
		<dc:creator>Dana Sutton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1251</guid>
		<description>I guess I&#039;m not as excited about the Mac Pro as I ought to be. You see, I don&#039;t use Photoshop or any high-end graphics or scientific software that is written to take advantage of muitiprocessors. In my work I use single-processor programs like Dreamweaver and Offfice, and I don&#039;t think Adobe or Microsoft are in any hurry to rewrite their apps. to make them multi-processor friendly. So okay, I can see the use of a dual-processor Mac for people like me (and I expect people like me are a large percentage of Mac users): one to run a program, the other to handle background tasks. But four??? So why should I have to pay for four cores when I can really only take advantage of two? Okay, you tell me to go out and buy an iMac. But I already have a nice 23&quot; Apple cinema monitor, and I want more speed and power than the iMac has to offer. It seems to me there&#039;s a gaping hole in the current Apple lineup which addresses the needs of a large number of users, I should be able to buy a 2-core MacPro and use the money I&#039;ve saved by paying for only a single two-core processor to buy extra memory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/ie.png' title='Internet Explorer 6.0' style='border:0px;' alt='Internet Explorer 6.0'/> <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/default.mspx' title='Internet Explorer 6.0' rel='nofollow'>Internet Explorer 6.0</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/win.png' title='Windows XP' style='border:0px;' alt='Windows XP'/> Windows XP<p>I guess I&#8217;m not as excited about the Mac Pro as I ought to be. You see, I don&#8217;t use Photoshop or any high-end graphics or scientific software that is written to take advantage of muitiprocessors. In my work I use single-processor programs like Dreamweaver and Offfice, and I don&#8217;t think Adobe or Microsoft are in any hurry to rewrite their apps. to make them multi-processor friendly. So okay, I can see the use of a dual-processor Mac for people like me (and I expect people like me are a large percentage of Mac users): one to run a program, the other to handle background tasks. But four??? So why should I have to pay for four cores when I can really only take advantage of two? Okay, you tell me to go out and buy an iMac. But I already have a nice 23&#8243; Apple cinema monitor, and I want more speed and power than the iMac has to offer. It seems to me there&#8217;s a gaping hole in the current Apple lineup which addresses the needs of a large number of users, I should be able to buy a 2-core MacPro and use the money I&#8217;ve saved by paying for only a single two-core processor to buy extra memory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Steinberg</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1233</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Steinberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1233</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Actually the switch to Intel marks the third (or fourth, depending on how you count) chip change for Apple.

The fist chip Apple used was the MOS 6502. When the Macintosh came along in 1984, Apple switched to the Motorola 6800 chips. In 1994, with the formation of the Apple-IBM-Motorola triumvirate, the PowerPC line of chips were introduced. And lastly in 2006 Apple migrated itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s entire product line (sans iPod) to Intel chips.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Change number one: From Motorola 68000 to PowerPC.

Change number two: To Intel.

The chips used in models prior to the Mac aren&#039;t relevant to this discussion.

Peace,
Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/firefox.png' title='Firefox 2.0b1' style='border:0px;' alt='Firefox 2.0b1'/> <a href='http://mozilla.org' title='Firefox 2.0b1' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 2.0b1</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/mac.png' title='Mac OS' style='border:0px;' alt='Mac OS'/> Mac OS <blockquote><p>Actually the switch to Intel marks the third (or fourth, depending on how you count) chip change for Apple.</p>
<p>The fist chip Apple used was the MOS 6502. When the Macintosh came along in 1984, Apple switched to the Motorola 6800 chips. In 1994, with the formation of the Apple-IBM-Motorola triumvirate, the PowerPC line of chips were introduced. And lastly in 2006 Apple migrated itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s entire product line (sans iPod) to Intel chips.</p></blockquote>
<p>Change number one: From Motorola 68000 to PowerPC.</p>
<p>Change number two: To Intel.</p>
<p>The chips used in models prior to the Mac aren&#8217;t relevant to this discussion.</p>
<p>Peace,<br />
Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dru</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1230</link>
		<dc:creator>Dru</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1230</guid>
		<description>Actually the switch to Intel marks the third (or fourth, depending on how you count) chip change for Apple.

The fist chip Apple used was the MOS 6502. When the Macintosh came along in 1984, Apple switched to the Motorola 6800 chips. In 1994, with the formation of the Apple-IBM-Motorola triumvirate, the PowerPC line of chips were introduced. And lastly in 2006 Apple migrated it&#039;s entire product line (sans iPod) to Intel chips.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/safari.png' title='Safari 419.3' style='border:0px;' alt='Safari 419.3'/> <a href='http://www.apple.com/safari/' title='Safari 419.3' rel='nofollow'>Safari 419.3</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/mac.png' title='Mac OS' style='border:0px;' alt='Mac OS'/> Mac OS <p>Actually the switch to Intel marks the third (or fourth, depending on how you count) chip change for Apple.</p>
<p>The fist chip Apple used was the MOS 6502. When the Macintosh came along in 1984, Apple switched to the Motorola 6800 chips. In 1994, with the formation of the Apple-IBM-Motorola triumvirate, the PowerPC line of chips were introduced. And lastly in 2006 Apple migrated it&#8217;s entire product line (sans iPod) to Intel chips.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1228</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1228</guid>
		<description>Vista will sell in the millions, even to a good number of Intel Mac owners I&#039;d be willing to bet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/firefox.png' title='Firefox 1.5.0.6' style='border:0px;' alt='Firefox 1.5.0.6'/> <a href='http://mozilla.org' title='Firefox 1.5.0.6' rel='nofollow'>Firefox 1.5.0.6</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/win.png' title='Windows XP' style='border:0px;' alt='Windows XP'/> Windows XP<p>Vista will sell in the millions, even to a good number of Intel Mac owners I&#8217;d be willing to bet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fett</title>
		<link>http://www.technightowl.com/2006/08/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/comment-page-1/#comment-1225</link>
		<dc:creator>Fett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macnightowl.com/2006/08/17/a-perspective-not-a-review-on-the-mac-pro/#comment-1225</guid>
		<description>&quot;But will anyone, except a few Windows devotees, really care?&quot;
Yes Gene, you&#039;re still in the Mac/PC war.   There will be more than a &quot;few&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[ <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/net/ie.png' title='Internet Explorer 6.0' style='border:0px;' alt='Internet Explorer 6.0'/> <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/default.mspx' title='Internet Explorer 6.0' rel='nofollow'>Internet Explorer 6.0</a>  <img src='http://www.technightowl.com/wp-content/plugins/useragent-spy/img/16/os/win.png' title='Windows XP' style='border:0px;' alt='Windows XP'/> Windows XP<p>&#8220;But will anyone, except a few Windows devotees, really care?&#8221;<br />
Yes Gene, you&#8217;re still in the Mac/PC war.   There will be more than a &#8220;few&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
