michaelz
Mar 25, 11:06 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) Mobile/8C148)
In another news: iPad 3 is released in Fall 2011.
Yes, ipad3 will run os x lion! MBA will have a touch screen!!
In another news: iPad 3 is released in Fall 2011.
Yes, ipad3 will run os x lion! MBA will have a touch screen!!
samcraig
Apr 27, 11:19 AM
News on slashdot.org:
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
Both are issues. Both are being addressed. Why must someone (you) throw one company under the bus in favor of supporting another. Both had/have issues and both are responding.
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
Both are issues. Both are being addressed. Why must someone (you) throw one company under the bus in favor of supporting another. Both had/have issues and both are responding.
macgeek2005
Aug 19, 09:43 PM
While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(
My heartly congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
My heartly congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 12, 06:05 AM
Ah but Finland is a tiny social democrat country that's home to some of the world's largest mobile companies. They like to give a bit back to their home communities.
We have the same cell phone system in Sweden, Denmark, Norway as in Finland. I am almost certain that Iceland has the same system too.
We have the same cell phone system in Sweden, Denmark, Norway as in Finland. I am almost certain that Iceland has the same system too.
rezenclowd3
Dec 8, 01:37 PM
{Feelings/ Thoughts on Damage}
Coolio, I believe you. I haven't played much single player since the day it was released, actually haven't played much GT5 at all as I have been so very dissapointed... Been playing Nascar online though. I should be very ashamed. However it seems that people online FOR THE MOST PART can handle turning in one direction cleanly....
Anyone notice that the last 1/4" inch of travel using the triggers on the PS3 controller is not used. It ramps to max throttle far before one is there. ALSO in this day and age, one should be able to adjust endpoints and ramping on triggers and sticks. Ugh. I should stop being used to my $500 RC car and helicopter transmitters.:cool:
Coolio, I believe you. I haven't played much single player since the day it was released, actually haven't played much GT5 at all as I have been so very dissapointed... Been playing Nascar online though. I should be very ashamed. However it seems that people online FOR THE MOST PART can handle turning in one direction cleanly....
Anyone notice that the last 1/4" inch of travel using the triggers on the PS3 controller is not used. It ramps to max throttle far before one is there. ALSO in this day and age, one should be able to adjust endpoints and ramping on triggers and sticks. Ugh. I should stop being used to my $500 RC car and helicopter transmitters.:cool:
Huntn
Apr 28, 09:58 AM
Imagine that, three responses which utterly fail to refute let alone dispute my clear and truthful argument. Instead, they leave snide remarks. No substance WHATSOEVER. :)
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
You accuse every 'liberal' in this forum of being blinded by their bias. I suppose all of the 'conservatives' see clearly and are willing to consider all reasonable alternatives. Lol. And then the debate becomes what is reasonable? :p
If you are unwilling to admit there is a racial aspect to some of the attacks on Obama who is being blind? There is no other President in the history of the U.S. who has been asked for so much proof of citizenship.
gus6464
Mar 22, 05:13 PM
I would really love for the Playbook or the Touchpad to succeed over the fragmented Android POS ecosystem. The HTC tablet that they announced today won't even come with Honeycomb.
RIM and HP have the right idea when it comes to their tablets. Geekyness does not make you popular (Android).
RIM and HP have the right idea when it comes to their tablets. Geekyness does not make you popular (Android).
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:43 PM
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
aafuss1
Aug 5, 11:34 PM
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
The Lombard-bronze keyboard PB in 1999.
The Lombard-bronze keyboard PB in 1999.
archer75
Apr 5, 05:05 PM
Not again..
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
They don't have to announce the new hardware there. It's very unlikely they would have an event to announce the hardware upgrade. But there's no reason a refresh can't take place that day.
There are many reports of supplies of imacs and minis drying up as of a week ago so a refresh is certainly imminent.
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
They don't have to announce the new hardware there. It's very unlikely they would have an event to announce the hardware upgrade. But there's no reason a refresh can't take place that day.
There are many reports of supplies of imacs and minis drying up as of a week ago so a refresh is certainly imminent.
jholzner
Jul 27, 10:42 AM
Sorry if i missed it, but at what speeds do these run? Don't they know just because they keep bumping and bumping the chip speed don't really mean they have a faster system. Seem just like yesterday when a better design was more important than a super fast chip. Oh well, everyone is buying into the Mhz myth now. Funny that just a year or so ago, Apple was trying to shoot down the Mhz myth, now they have people cheering for it. I guess power consumption is good though.
If you read the linked articled you will find the answer.
Also, right from the macrumors page is a quote that says, "Core 2 Duo runs at slower clock speeds than Pentium-era chips, but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle." I think that would show that this has nothing to do with the Mhz myth but is the opposite.
If you read the linked articled you will find the answer.
Also, right from the macrumors page is a quote that says, "Core 2 Duo runs at slower clock speeds than Pentium-era chips, but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle." I think that would show that this has nothing to do with the Mhz myth but is the opposite.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:39 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Half Glass
Sep 13, 10:26 AM
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!
--HG
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!
--HG
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
BLUELION
Apr 7, 10:52 PM
This is not a low for apple, when you have stock and have entered into a legal agreement to sell the stock, you sell what you have. Not selling the product is lost sales and dollars.
The fiasco here lies with Best Buy entirely. Apple did the right thing to pull their product.
Get a clue dude.
another low for apple, i ordered Mar 19th still waiting ...
fiasco just continues, does not look nice apple.
The fiasco here lies with Best Buy entirely. Apple did the right thing to pull their product.
Get a clue dude.
another low for apple, i ordered Mar 19th still waiting ...
fiasco just continues, does not look nice apple.
puckhead193
Aug 17, 12:27 AM
i went to my local apple store, and holy crap the thing is really fast. I'm tempted to get one, instead of an iMac, the only thing that's holding me back is the size.
cgc
Jul 15, 11:05 AM
:o well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
I think placing the PSU at the bottom of the case is good...heavy items near the top of the case may lead to Macs being prone to tipping over. Heat can be vented easy enough...
daneoni
Aug 25, 04:03 PM
Kind of a rude reply to someone who is just posting their experience with Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
Agreed, thats why i asked what that meant. I mean its a distasteful reply and im sure if iMike were in his shoes he'd be writing the same type of post....then again he might suck it up...because its almighty Apple.
Without criticism there would never be a reason to improve anything.
Agreed, thats why i asked what that meant. I mean its a distasteful reply and im sure if iMike were in his shoes he'd be writing the same type of post....then again he might suck it up...because its almighty Apple.
blackburn
Mar 26, 06:10 AM
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
Yeah but an 800 eur notebook that kicks macbook pros costing 1500eur in the but (only performance wise). Anyway it's cheaper to get a new pc than buying windows.
Yeah but an 800 eur notebook that kicks macbook pros costing 1500eur in the but (only performance wise). Anyway it's cheaper to get a new pc than buying windows.
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:19 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
VanNess
Aug 8, 12:02 AM
Running the preview now... some nice developer level stuff that I cannot ebelish on however beyond what was talked about in the keynote...Next spring Apple will have a good answer to Vista with little disruption to end users and developers (unlike Vista).
All of a sudden Macworld 07 just got a lot more interesting. :)
All of a sudden Macworld 07 just got a lot more interesting. :)
gugy
Aug 11, 03:51 PM
i just want a cell phone that works.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
all these phones today(by all these phones i mean the motorolas i have had, so mayby motorola's jsut suck) have this ridiculous amount of latency when you are navigating the menus. cause they have to have all this fancy crap flyin around. its like phones are using the same technology from 5 years ago but they are just piling these features into them so they dog down. overall phones today seem to suck just a bit. my nokia 8260 was the best phone i ever had and it was monochrome with no camera or video or stupid crap like that...
plus it seems that my phones ability to get reception when inside a building has gotten worse over time too. i used to get good reception inside my work, but now i don't. and its the same building.
so all in all, just give me a phone that works and functions well and i'll be happy.
I agree simplicity is everything!
Knowing Apple, I hope the Iphone will be simple and slick. That's all we really need.
buckers
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
What do you intend to do on an Air that will require what little extra power the nvidia gfx offers over Intel. You sure as hell can't game with it.
You sure as hell can.
This.
You sure as hell can.
This.
