roach
Nov 30, 03:06 AM
Well, then you don't understand Apple's magic. That's precisely where
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
they are good at: make complicated things simple.
It's like a Sony TV remote control compared to others : when you use it, you find everything else too much complicated...
How do you record channel 105 from 5:30PM to 6:30PM on Friday? Damn...that would take forever with 4 buttons.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 6, 03:49 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
Well if you consider a minor speed bump as a refresh. In that case MBP was refreshed within 4 months of it`s launch and now it`s been 4 months since that refresh too. So MBP still is due for a refresh even if we go by your theory of refresh timings.
I know the sept 12 event might only concentrate on Movie store and maybe a new iPod. But in case MBP is not redesigned I guess they`ll do a silent upgrade within a couple of weeks.
NeoMac
Apr 12, 01:51 PM
No, but I sure would like to learn! My mid life crisis is right around the corner and I would like to buy a sports car preferably a convertible with a manual transmission. I realize it's clich� but I still would like to do that! :)
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Previous question: How hard could it be to take advangate of the multi-cores.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
detoxguy
Sep 15, 02:10 AM
This story gets buried in the blog and a story of ninja stars makes page one? No Apple bias here. :rolleyes:
possibly the dumbest statement of the day (saying alot). Of course there's an Apple bias...it's called MAC rumors....
CR blah blah blah is supposed to be news?
possibly the dumbest statement of the day (saying alot). Of course there's an Apple bias...it's called MAC rumors....
CR blah blah blah is supposed to be news?
macidiot
Jul 19, 03:59 PM
Actually, the analysts were pretty close this time, except for the profit margins. I'm thinking that the fact that the iPod is now using older parts (therefore cheaper parts) is pushing the cost down for Apple, and hence really making it a big cash cow and driving up the profit margin, even if they aren't selling quite as many as last quarter (which also has to do with seasonal decline).
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Edit: oops... it appears as though the analysts definitely did blow the whole revenue expectation a bit. Missed that.
Actually, they were completely off base with their Mac estimates. Since it appears that most people on Wall St. think that Apple only makes iPods, this is no surprise.
Most estimates were for around 1 million Macs sold. Apple came in at 1.3 million. There's the margin difference right there.
Dagless
Jun 22, 04:24 PM
Has anyone else here used touchscreen computers? They're a pain! Verging on useless. When I had one I thought it was fun for a few minutes, then I went back to keyboard and mouse.
I hope this isn't the start of OSX being replaced by iOS. I like my compatibility and "free" OS (not being limited to a store, being able to do things without voiding the warranty, etc).
I hope this isn't the start of OSX being replaced by iOS. I like my compatibility and "free" OS (not being limited to a store, being able to do things without voiding the warranty, etc).
dethmaShine
May 3, 04:56 AM
A good uninstaller is need in OS 10. I'd like to know where and how much is installed.
That's what Apple's trying NOT to do.
They don't want you to care about these issues what so ever. If you are interested, use an external software.
I remember a post that I read on MR some time back. It explained that there are some tasks that we should not be doing but we do out for our own sake; as if they are built into us. There are some tasks which we just do and don't realize we are doing them. They slowly transform into a habit and we can't get them go away just like that.
For eg. quitting of apps. Apple does NOT want us to quit the apps ourselves. They believe its high time the computers become self aware as to what they should be doing and taking care of their user's habits.
You shouldn't care about the installation files and other data. Just drag them out out to the trash and BOOM!.
The reason you have plist files and other data stored on the computer because the developers wanted so. Apple now strictly states that any data must be saved in the app and the library folder should not be referenced at all.
In my opinion, just like on Windows, its the developers responsibility to attach an uninstaller with their app Or just a simple script which keeps a track of all the files that were dumped in the machine and then just do a recursive remove on all the files and folders and done. It's the fault of developers and not Apple.
That's what Apple's trying NOT to do.
They don't want you to care about these issues what so ever. If you are interested, use an external software.
I remember a post that I read on MR some time back. It explained that there are some tasks that we should not be doing but we do out for our own sake; as if they are built into us. There are some tasks which we just do and don't realize we are doing them. They slowly transform into a habit and we can't get them go away just like that.
For eg. quitting of apps. Apple does NOT want us to quit the apps ourselves. They believe its high time the computers become self aware as to what they should be doing and taking care of their user's habits.
You shouldn't care about the installation files and other data. Just drag them out out to the trash and BOOM!.
The reason you have plist files and other data stored on the computer because the developers wanted so. Apple now strictly states that any data must be saved in the app and the library folder should not be referenced at all.
In my opinion, just like on Windows, its the developers responsibility to attach an uninstaller with their app Or just a simple script which keeps a track of all the files that were dumped in the machine and then just do a recursive remove on all the files and folders and done. It's the fault of developers and not Apple.
guez
Aug 29, 11:04 AM
This is exactly what I predicted would happen when Apple went Intel. Now that Macs can be compared component for component with Wintel machines and new hardware is coming out every month, everyone is worked up about keeping up with latest thing at the best possible price and getting increasingly frustrated with Apple's unwillingness to create a product line with 10000 different machines that each compete with dollar for dollar and component for component with every other machine on the market. Meanwhile, we have people talking about $299 machines with DVD burners (AND Windows? I'd like to see THAT!).
If you're so concerned about keeping up with the Jones, just buy a Dell, already.
If you're so concerned about keeping up with the Jones, just buy a Dell, already.
LondonCentral
Mar 22, 11:48 PM
I used to have gigs and gigs of music. Then one day I realized most of it was crap that didn't enrich my life in any way. Only hoarders feel the need to carry around that much music with them. It's akin to carrying around thousands of high res images of paintings from the worlds great museums just so you could hit shuffle and revisit some of those awe inspiring moments of self realization.
Actually an app that did that would be pretty cool.
Anyway, you get my point. Not all of us dream about working in a record store.
Now, a 220gb retina display iPod Classic Touch would be useful. Something that allowed you to save any type of data, not just music, videos and photos.
Actually an app that did that would be pretty cool.
Anyway, you get my point. Not all of us dream about working in a record store.
Now, a 220gb retina display iPod Classic Touch would be useful. Something that allowed you to save any type of data, not just music, videos and photos.
Zadillo
Aug 6, 09:24 PM
Longhorn is code name, The product name is Vista you will not see a third name for windows vista. Just like Windows XP I think was called Whistler (code name).
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
Just about all companies give there product a code name and then a release name once it's ready for the retail stores or a public beta like you see windows vista.
Indeed. I sort of forget, but at what point did Apple decide to start making the "code names" part of the official name of the commercial product? I'm thinking it must have been with 10.2 (I don't remember them publicizing Cheetah as the name of 10.0 or Puma as the name of 10.1).
I guess it's almost a necessity given the unique product naming issues with OS X. On one hand, Apple is basically limited to doing single-point version increases with each update to OS X (because if they actually were to jump from 10.x to, say, 11.0, the OS X name would no longer mean anything). But if you just advertise "Mac OS X 10.5", it's hard to get people too excited about that. So I guess it makes sense for Apple to go ahead and really push the cat codename stuff as the final product name. Also, probably easier for the average consumer to just remember Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, etc. than individual version numbers.
RaceTripper
Jan 10, 10:59 AM
I love the german-colored motorsport emblem!
Gorgeous 1-er!
I cannot believe BMW is still putting MYRTLE WOOD in these cars. :pThe 1-series M Coupe (http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/254504/) has been debuted at Detroit Auto Show. I love the Alcantara dash treatment. I hope to get one later (wife gets a new car first).
Gorgeous 1-er!
I cannot believe BMW is still putting MYRTLE WOOD in these cars. :pThe 1-series M Coupe (http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/254504/) has been debuted at Detroit Auto Show. I love the Alcantara dash treatment. I hope to get one later (wife gets a new car first).
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:12 PM
A 23" Merom iMac. Really nice! But I was hoping for Conroe to power the next iMac series. A bit underwhelming. Isn't the Conroe supposed to have a solid performance edge over the Merom? A faster FSB and higher clockspeeds?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
What to think of this? Sure, in some tests Merom performs up to 40% faster than Yonah, but in others it only shows a puny advantage. The truth is bound to be somewhere in between those claims. So, Merom performs some 20% faster than Yonah. That's nice, sure, but not exactly overwhelming.
I don't like this. Don't know why exactly...
23" I do like, though. What GPU will power that display? Hopefully an X1900, although an X1800 is more likely. What will it cost. Man, too many questions right now.
What about Merom powering the 17" and 20" iMacs, and the 23" imac being powered by Conroe?
0010101
Nov 28, 12:47 PM
I think it's way to early to make any judgments regarding Zune sales. Let's see what the numbers look like after Christmas.
5 years ago, Zune, in it's current form, might have been a hit.. but not in todays market. Especially considering folks who have lots of money tied up in MP3's aren't going to be real interested in throwing them away, and starting all over again.. or spend countless hours converting thousands of files.
I don't find it ugly, but I sure don't care for the brown color. What I noticed most about the Zune is that it feels and looks cheap in person. Like what i'd expect a mockup or prototype unit to look and feel like. From a distance, it looks fine.. you get close up, and.. well.. not so nice.
Almost like they rushed it to market in time for the '06 Holiday buying season.
Apple has the portable MP3 player market locked up.. with models in all but the lowest price ranges.. and the Zune sure is no immediate threat.
Comparisons of the Zune to the Xbox are not really fair.. they are two entirely different products.
Microsoft (as well as Sony and Nintendo) can sell the unit itself for at or below their actual cost, because where they make the real money isn't in selling the game console, but in selling the games and accessories.
With MP3 players, you have to make money on the product sale, because there is no guarantee the end user will buy all their music from your 'store'.
Zune specs are subject to change.. as are most retail products. Don't forget that when the iPod was first introduced, it only worked with Macs.. then they made a Windows version.. then finally they made an iPod that worked with either computer.
I expect a new version of the Zune by spring.. with new features, and less restriction.
5 years ago, Zune, in it's current form, might have been a hit.. but not in todays market. Especially considering folks who have lots of money tied up in MP3's aren't going to be real interested in throwing them away, and starting all over again.. or spend countless hours converting thousands of files.
I don't find it ugly, but I sure don't care for the brown color. What I noticed most about the Zune is that it feels and looks cheap in person. Like what i'd expect a mockup or prototype unit to look and feel like. From a distance, it looks fine.. you get close up, and.. well.. not so nice.
Almost like they rushed it to market in time for the '06 Holiday buying season.
Apple has the portable MP3 player market locked up.. with models in all but the lowest price ranges.. and the Zune sure is no immediate threat.
Comparisons of the Zune to the Xbox are not really fair.. they are two entirely different products.
Microsoft (as well as Sony and Nintendo) can sell the unit itself for at or below their actual cost, because where they make the real money isn't in selling the game console, but in selling the games and accessories.
With MP3 players, you have to make money on the product sale, because there is no guarantee the end user will buy all their music from your 'store'.
Zune specs are subject to change.. as are most retail products. Don't forget that when the iPod was first introduced, it only worked with Macs.. then they made a Windows version.. then finally they made an iPod that worked with either computer.
I expect a new version of the Zune by spring.. with new features, and less restriction.
mterlouw
Sep 6, 10:02 AM
i agree. i would never buy a computer that didn't have a dvd burner....and i'd never advise someone else to either
And neither would Steve Jobs, and so he wants you to spend $799 for the feature.
And neither would Steve Jobs, and so he wants you to spend $799 for the feature.
takao
Mar 2, 04:52 PM
the fact that after the second generation Jetta, VW had to rename the car in germany/europe (Bora, Vento) and still had lousy sales there, should have been a warning sign
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
the last few generations of the jetta have been absolute rubbish ... i hoping this new generation is actually better
Full of Win
Apr 21, 12:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
If you have a passcode on your phone then you cant sync/create a backup if your phone was lost or stolen
Sorry, but this is wrong. While it may slow some down, there are ways around this.
If you have a passcode on your phone then you cant sync/create a backup if your phone was lost or stolen
Sorry, but this is wrong. While it may slow some down, there are ways around this.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 01:09 AM
for all your defending of this feature ... can you give me even one positive reason this is good for the average person that out-weighs the negative ones ... just one
That is a good question.
I have a huge issue with how it is done and the fact that you can not opt out of it. On top of that Apple has piss poor protection of the file and Apple history at security is not exactly the best.
There should be a way to opt out. But collecting them with out my choice is an issue.
I trust Google a hell of a lot more with the info and being more up front about it then Apple and I do not trust Google that much.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
That is a good question.
I have a huge issue with how it is done and the fact that you can not opt out of it. On top of that Apple has piss poor protection of the file and Apple history at security is not exactly the best.
There should be a way to opt out. But collecting them with out my choice is an issue.
I trust Google a hell of a lot more with the info and being more up front about it then Apple and I do not trust Google that much.
If LTD wants an example other wise you can see companies start using these feature on the phones to track employees at all time and what they do. Or in court cases them being pulled it to use against one spouse in a mess divorce.
Spying on ones spouse is another example.
someone28624
Mar 22, 04:16 PM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
iPod plays videos and shows photos also.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
iPod plays videos and shows photos also.
mc68k
Jan 7, 01:46 PM
my 2003 540i M Wagon. upgraded w afe intake and remus exhaust. custom catback piping + resonator delete. stock 290HP/320torque :) 92K miles. next mod is prob full aluminum radiator + electric fan. i heard the cooling system starts degrading around 100K. got the water pump (replaced OEM plastic w metal impeller) and hoses done when i first bought it
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2327/img0209ed.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/img0209ed.jpg/)
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7297/img0210uy.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/img0210uy.jpg/)
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5186/img0211g.th.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/img0211g.jpg/)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/998/img0213gu.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img0213gu.jpg/)
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1771/img0252vm.th.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/img0252vm.jpg/)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9484/img0253sy.th.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/img0253sy.jpg/)
daily driver is a 97 lumina
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/Photo%20Jan%2007%2C%2011%2043%2034%20AM.jpg
took on a 3200mi road trip last year-- really fun on the highway and surprisingly gets good highway mileage
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2327/img0209ed.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/img0209ed.jpg/)
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7297/img0210uy.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/img0210uy.jpg/)
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/5186/img0211g.th.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/img0211g.jpg/)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/998/img0213gu.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/i/img0213gu.jpg/)
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1771/img0252vm.th.jpg (http://img819.imageshack.us/i/img0252vm.jpg/)
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9484/img0253sy.th.jpg (http://img402.imageshack.us/i/img0253sy.jpg/)
daily driver is a 97 lumina
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/Photo%20Jan%2007%2C%2011%2043%2034%20AM.jpg
Clive At Five
Nov 28, 10:37 AM
Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox and likely to lose hundreds of millions on their Zune attempt. iPod sales have been profitable for Apple since their introduction. How one measures success in this industry can't always be marketshare.
Yes, the XBox was sold at a loss, but now they are a powerful and permanent player in the multi-billion-dollar gaming console industry. They'll make back their billions by the time "XBox 2πr" comes out.
The Zune is a different story:
[Zune] will have to win on features and integration -- so they are pretty much doomed. They have essentially bet the whole farm on the wireless exchange.
Nail on head, my friend. Nail on head.
See ya later, Zune.
-Clive
Yes, the XBox was sold at a loss, but now they are a powerful and permanent player in the multi-billion-dollar gaming console industry. They'll make back their billions by the time "XBox 2πr" comes out.
The Zune is a different story:
[Zune] will have to win on features and integration -- so they are pretty much doomed. They have essentially bet the whole farm on the wireless exchange.
Nail on head, my friend. Nail on head.
See ya later, Zune.
-Clive
twoodcc
May 3, 11:07 AM
I don't use my 09 MP for anything real intense but even having several apps going it doesn't take anything out of folding, I get the same times regardless.
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
BlizzardBomb
Aug 29, 09:24 AM
Since we don't know the prices yet, my suggestion is that we don't touch the "jump to conclusions mat" just yet.
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
Most benchmarks show the difference between the 1.5 Ghz Solo and 1.66 Ghz Duo to be about 15% for single-core apps (games) and about 30% for dual-core aware apps. So not really more than 100% more performance.
My take on this is that it's a great update! The performance of the base-model is more than doubled when you really think about it! Bring on the updates!
Most benchmarks show the difference between the 1.5 Ghz Solo and 1.66 Ghz Duo to be about 15% for single-core apps (games) and about 30% for dual-core aware apps. So not really more than 100% more performance.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.