patseguin
Aug 7, 08:21 AM
Will Leopard be available for download by ADC members as soon as it is given out at WWDC?
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 27, 10:50 AM
I think it's not as bad as what the media would have you believe, BUT it is worse than what Apple wants you to think.
Sure, cell towers could be up to 100 miles away. And when I ran the mapping tool and plotted my locations, and zoom in far enough, I do indeed see a grid of cell towers as opposed to actual locations where I've been standing. All anyone could know is that I've been "somewhere" in the vicinity.
(And this isn't new. Some time ago I came upon a car crash and called 911 on my cell phone to report it. They were able to get the location to send emergency services just by where I was calling from. It wasn't 100% accurate -- they asked if I was near a major intersection and I told them it was about a block from there.)
However, if it's also tracking wifi hotspots, those can pinpoint you pretty closely. Most people stay within 30-50 feet of their wireless router, and the ones you spend the most time connected to will be the ones at home, at work, and and at your friends' houses.
Potentially yes. However as people stated, it was way out of proportion. Media is one end, Apple is the other like you said. I'm sure like 99.1% of things, it lies somewhere in between them.
Sure, cell towers could be up to 100 miles away. And when I ran the mapping tool and plotted my locations, and zoom in far enough, I do indeed see a grid of cell towers as opposed to actual locations where I've been standing. All anyone could know is that I've been "somewhere" in the vicinity.
(And this isn't new. Some time ago I came upon a car crash and called 911 on my cell phone to report it. They were able to get the location to send emergency services just by where I was calling from. It wasn't 100% accurate -- they asked if I was near a major intersection and I told them it was about a block from there.)
However, if it's also tracking wifi hotspots, those can pinpoint you pretty closely. Most people stay within 30-50 feet of their wireless router, and the ones you spend the most time connected to will be the ones at home, at work, and and at your friends' houses.
Potentially yes. However as people stated, it was way out of proportion. Media is one end, Apple is the other like you said. I'm sure like 99.1% of things, it lies somewhere in between them.
arkitect
Apr 28, 06:13 AM
I am not going to read 7 pages to see if someone already said this because I am sure they did.
It's clearly a forgery.
And you base that on what evidence exactly? :confused:
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
Well judging by your signature I'd take that comment with a large pinch of salt.
It's clearly a forgery.
And you base that on what evidence exactly? :confused:
Not liking Obama does not mean you are racist.
Well judging by your signature I'd take that comment with a large pinch of salt.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 27, 12:53 AM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
Now that has been replaced with Core 2 Dup next Monday ;)
Now that has been replaced with Core 2 Dup next Monday ;)
savar
Sep 13, 07:17 AM
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
vingochr
Apr 6, 02:58 PM
I've got a thread on most likely processors for the SB MBAs. A lot more powerful is more likely than the post suggests for the 13".
Here it is:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103979
Here it is:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103979
edenwaith
Jul 14, 04:34 PM
ONLY DDR2-667?!? :confused:
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
Come on Apple, you'd BETTER use DDR2-800 or I'll be pissed! :mad:
No, they better equip every new Mac with 10 Terabytes of DDR9-5000 RAM! And they will also include a Raid 5 configuration at 20 Exabytes! And the entire machine will be smaller than your fingernail.
But it will then come equipped with a 16Mhz Motorola 680x0 chip.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
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.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
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.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
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).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
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.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
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).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
babyj
Sep 19, 09:46 AM
I am new to this (and still waiting to buy my first Mac). BUT why all this talk about speed and not about screen size.
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
chasemac
Aug 7, 05:46 PM
can't believe only 8 people voted for 64bit, its the most profound change here.... all others you can achieve with some 3rd party softwares.
Same here. To me it is one of the most significant upgrades of all of them.
Same here. To me it is one of the most significant upgrades of all of them.
Analog Kid
Apr 6, 02:04 PM
Xoon...
Popeye206
Apr 11, 12:48 PM
Enough with all the damn secrets. What other company keeps you in the dark about their products?! I've noticed a lot of people get tired of the same old waiting game with the iPhone and go ahead and get something else. Sometimes they like it and stick to the brand instead of Apple. This secrecy strategy was good at first but now it's starting to work against Apple.
I've noticed that too with their products all being top sellers! :rolleyes:
Personally, I like that they keep things under wraps. Why do I care until something is released anyway. Others do it as a sign of desperation to try and hold off people from buying something else. Obviously, this strategy really worked well for Moto and the Xoom.... lots of pre-ship hype and big flop afterwards.
I've noticed that too with their products all being top sellers! :rolleyes:
Personally, I like that they keep things under wraps. Why do I care until something is released anyway. Others do it as a sign of desperation to try and hold off people from buying something else. Obviously, this strategy really worked well for Moto and the Xoom.... lots of pre-ship hype and big flop afterwards.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 19, 09:01 PM
I remember when the ipad 2 was announced. A samsung CEO said "we're going to have to rethink our copy of the ipad." Very innovative.
blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:03 PM
Ah linux trolls are my favorite :rolleyes: I lost count how many times I've answered a question and/or posted on something to have the random linux guy show up and spout "Or just toss out your mac/pc and install linux on a new machine". Of course no one asked about linux.
What?
What?
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:30 PM
rape and paedophilia both involve lack of consent. Although paedophilia has to do with that the mind is attracted to pre-pubescent children in the same way that homosexuality causes attraction to the same sex. Both cases are untreatable.
Now you've stopped stating opinions and walked into fact territory.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
Now you've stopped stating opinions and walked into fact territory.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
krcbkidz
Mar 22, 04:07 PM
Samsung can say all they want about their products. There are the following glaring issues:
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
1. Has anyone realize how much less Samsung's profit margins will be on the Galaxy Tab versus the iPad2? (ie. Apple retains a high profitability based on inhouse product development rather than contracting to third parties like other hardware developers)
2. Given what I perceive to be an extremely small profit margin, I find it difficult from an investor standpoint to endorse Samsung's business model.
3. It is next to impossible from a longterm business perspective that Samsung can price match Apple in this respect. It's an unsustainable business practice.
Willis
Jul 29, 08:23 AM
Does anyone else find the UK store Shipping times a bit long all of a sudden. theyve been like this since monday i think.
white Macbooks 3 days, iMac 20" 5-7 days?
white Macbooks 3 days, iMac 20" 5-7 days?
mdntcallr
Sep 19, 10:00 AM
Well, I've been on MacRumors since last week and I'm already tired of posts telling me what I really need. I don't recall seeing posts saying Yonah was crap. Most people just want to feel like they are making a good investment on an expensive piece of equipment that may be around for 3-4+ years. I would like a laptop with a 64-bit processor. Period. I don't care what you think I need. The problem with posts like this are that they waste my time, and the time of other users who are looking for information on the release of the new MBP models.
I agree with your sentiments. While it is great to get steady advancements in the amount of say, 2x year refreshes. The performance difference between merom and yonah is an incremental upgrade. not a major big deal.
you should be happy with the laptop you have. The chip has the power you need for now and the next several years.
Personally for me though, I am still on my PB 1.25 alum, so i am very interested in good progress for the new MBP's, such as... larger hard drives 160 gb as BTO option, better ram pricing, better graphics cards, and options for killer graphics card, and... finally Blu-Ray drives.
that and a Airplane/Auto Magsafe power adapter. dont you think that would be nice. it's been to long without it! cmon apple. build it!
I agree with your sentiments. While it is great to get steady advancements in the amount of say, 2x year refreshes. The performance difference between merom and yonah is an incremental upgrade. not a major big deal.
you should be happy with the laptop you have. The chip has the power you need for now and the next several years.
Personally for me though, I am still on my PB 1.25 alum, so i am very interested in good progress for the new MBP's, such as... larger hard drives 160 gb as BTO option, better ram pricing, better graphics cards, and options for killer graphics card, and... finally Blu-Ray drives.
that and a Airplane/Auto Magsafe power adapter. dont you think that would be nice. it's been to long without it! cmon apple. build it!
rjheys
Mar 26, 05:57 AM
I still don't get it, why do we apple users have to pay for os updates? The hardware is already expensive as hell.
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.
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.
Porchland
Aug 7, 03:30 PM
The side menu in the Mail (at least in the Quicktime demo on Apple) shows Notes and To Do. Wouldn't it make sense to finally bring Address Book and iCal into Mail along with these new options?
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 12:56 PM
Do you use stacks for accessing applications? If yes, then why wouldn't you want to use launchpad?
I use Spotlight, but Launchpad is terribly inefficient compared to stacks. You have to click on its icon to invoke it, hunt through potentially a bunch of different screens, click on a folder if you've organized your apps, and then click on your app. With stacks, I move my cursor down to the dock, click on the appropriate stack, and then click on my app. 2 clicks vs a button press, a bunch of swipes, hunting, and 2 more clicks.
I use Spotlight, but Launchpad is terribly inefficient compared to stacks. You have to click on its icon to invoke it, hunt through potentially a bunch of different screens, click on a folder if you've organized your apps, and then click on your app. With stacks, I move my cursor down to the dock, click on the appropriate stack, and then click on my app. 2 clicks vs a button press, a bunch of swipes, hunting, and 2 more clicks.
saltyzoo
Apr 5, 05:12 PM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
nsjoker
Aug 17, 01:41 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment