JMax1
Nov 28, 06:43 PM
"It would be a nice idea."
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
What does that mean? I have lots of nice ideas for getting money when I didn't do anything.
By this logic, shouldn't Universal also get royalties for every CD player, Cassette player, and radio sold?
Might as well cash in on the giant cash cow that is the iPod :rolleyes:
S i
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
NATO
Nov 28, 06:58 PM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
So they say.... :rolleyes:
So they say.... :rolleyes:
onemorething
Aug 5, 08:50 PM
I did a little digging and the most amount of time between any given ipod release is 10 months. I did more research and apple has released a new ipod on average every 9-10 months; the last major ipod was released in oct. 2005. I say any given tuesday between now and october or expo paris:rolleyes:
ciTiger
Apr 27, 08:58 AM
It seems a good argument to me.
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
But saying they are going to "issue" an update specifically for fixing related things seems fishy....
geiger167
Aug 25, 04:05 PM
I had a problem with my .mac account recently (failure to update Idisc and Iweb) and reported the fault on the apple support forum for some help. The service was down for a day and a half when I received a phone call from Apple in America. As I live in the UK I was certainly not expecting a phone call from anyone. The Apple representive went through my propblem with me on the phone and made sure my .mac account was working perfectly before he rang off. The problem with service faults are only complaints are ever heard, no one ever mentions the good service when it occurs, and the company was certainly under no obligation to me to make a transatlantic phone call to help me out and is the first time in my many years as a computer user when any manufacturer has ever made this kind of effort to solve a complaint :)
chatin
Aug 16, 11:58 PM
This poor cache design will kill off the G5's fast in rendering intensive workspaces.
The G5 has only 1MB of cache and it's per core not per cpu. If one core needs to cache 3.5MB of data it's possible on the Mac Pro becauce the CPU cache is fully unified.
I just ran Cinebench 9.5 on my Mac Pro and got 4 Cpu's Showing and a healthy 3.5 Ratio. (That means the CPU's are working together very well, thanks to the Intel Smart Cache.)
:) :p
The G5 has only 1MB of cache and it's per core not per cpu. If one core needs to cache 3.5MB of data it's possible on the Mac Pro becauce the CPU cache is fully unified.
I just ran Cinebench 9.5 on my Mac Pro and got 4 Cpu's Showing and a healthy 3.5 Ratio. (That means the CPU's are working together very well, thanks to the Intel Smart Cache.)
:) :p
milo
Jul 14, 03:21 PM
Except Conroes don't support dual processor configuration. Woodcrest does, hence the reason it will be in the Pro line machines while Conroe is put into new iMacs.
So why use woodcrest WITHOUT dual processor configuration? Makes no sense, any single proc models should be conroe.
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
Macs have ALREADY had two optical bays (including twin CD drives). And none of these configs include two drives, you'd only have a second one if you wanted it.
Copying DVD's, nowadays people are backing up their own materials. Most dvd copying would be making backups of your own discs. Burning multiple discs would be a great option as well. And bluray drives will be INCREDIBLY expensive when these machines ship, not to mention who knows how well they will burn cd's and dvd's (assuming that all bluray drives will be burners, none of them readers only). Many people will want to wait and add a bluray or hd-dvd later, especially since nobody knows which will be the winning format.
So why use woodcrest WITHOUT dual processor configuration? Makes no sense, any single proc models should be conroe.
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
Macs have ALREADY had two optical bays (including twin CD drives). And none of these configs include two drives, you'd only have a second one if you wanted it.
Copying DVD's, nowadays people are backing up their own materials. Most dvd copying would be making backups of your own discs. Burning multiple discs would be a great option as well. And bluray drives will be INCREDIBLY expensive when these machines ship, not to mention who knows how well they will burn cd's and dvd's (assuming that all bluray drives will be burners, none of them readers only). Many people will want to wait and add a bluray or hd-dvd later, especially since nobody knows which will be the winning format.
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:57 PM
I agree.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
But who in their right minds would want to own something called a Playbook? :o
The iPad isn't exactly a name to write home about either. Then, neither is TouchPad, Xoom, or Galaxy Tab.
emotion
Jul 20, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
milo
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Why?
Why?
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.
craig jones
Sep 13, 12:58 PM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
scottsjack
Apr 25, 02:35 PM
Strange but using the downloaded software my 3Gs running the latest iOS doesn't show very many of the places I've been. I drove 400 miles this weekend using the 3Gs for navigation and a photo. Even that trip doesn't show. All I can see is a bunch of evenly-spaced dots in my area.
leekohler
Feb 28, 06:16 PM
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
Where did I say he could not have an opinion? All I said was that his opinion should have no bearing on my life.
mahonmeister
Nov 29, 12:35 AM
Heeeeeeell Nooooooo.
Eat my shorts Universal.
Eat my shorts Universal.
Koufax80
Apr 25, 02:41 PM
Damnit! I just looked outside and saw Steve Jobs with a clipboard... Apple must have sent him to track my location since I turned my phone off...
ugp
Jun 22, 12:23 PM
I am in Inverness, FL.
I have 3 stores in my County and only 2 of them received phones. The store I reserved mine at did not get any. But they issued the most PINs.
Citrus County and North is my District area.
As I am not an employee there anymore I cannot check stock myself.
I will see if my buddy can pull a Regional View and Print it out.
EDIT:
The Region (Region 2) is getting 139. Every District is getting phones. Lowests being 4 and the highest being 29.
ALSO Note, This is what Stores are receiving right now. There is no word until tonight if more will be coming in tomorrow. I will keep you all posted.
The Region consists of all of Florida and Georgia.
I have 3 stores in my County and only 2 of them received phones. The store I reserved mine at did not get any. But they issued the most PINs.
Citrus County and North is my District area.
As I am not an employee there anymore I cannot check stock myself.
I will see if my buddy can pull a Regional View and Print it out.
EDIT:
The Region (Region 2) is getting 139. Every District is getting phones. Lowests being 4 and the highest being 29.
ALSO Note, This is what Stores are receiving right now. There is no word until tonight if more will be coming in tomorrow. I will keep you all posted.
The Region consists of all of Florida and Georgia.
ChrisA
Jul 27, 12:18 PM
With things like this, my rule is: If you have to ask, then you can't do it :-(
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
How true. The processor is soldered to the logic board on the notebooks It is in a socket in the iMac. So yes iMacs will be easy to upgrade but MB and MBP will require conciderable level of skill and some very specialized equipment. There may be 3rd parties offing the upgrade some day
Why would they solder the CPU? Saves the space of a socket. Heat transfer is better, very little chance of it comming loose. Those socets add not a small amount of height to the chip
moooosedude
Jul 20, 08:27 AM
The Mactopus??
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
Zargot
Jul 20, 01:07 PM
New Apple Mac Pro Dual Quad
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
More like $13,950
:rolleyes:
Dual Intel Xeon 8400 Quardro processors at 3.4Ghz (2 x 4 core)
2Gb Buffered DDR2 RAM
750 Gb Sata2 Hard drive
Blue Ray Super drive 2x
Regular DVD rom in second bay
ATI X1900 video card 512mb PCI express x16
$3950
More like $13,950
:rolleyes:
AvSRoCkCO1067
Aug 11, 01:41 PM
From what we're read so far, especially the quote that went something like: "it's not like we're sitting around not doing anything." or however it went, and everybody read this:
It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN
I just find it rather funny that so many people are already giving it the name iPhone. I think that is the worst name ever, and a little too predictable. Even the false "iChat Mobile" was a far superior name.
I don't think anyone actually thinks it will be called the 'iPhone' - instead, we're just using that highly generic name until we find out what it really will be called...
It's not a question of if, it's a question of WHEN
I just find it rather funny that so many people are already giving it the name iPhone. I think that is the worst name ever, and a little too predictable. Even the false "iChat Mobile" was a far superior name.
I don't think anyone actually thinks it will be called the 'iPhone' - instead, we're just using that highly generic name until we find out what it really will be called...
sam10685
Aug 11, 01:19 PM
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
8) Lightweight, small FF
that would be a definite for Apple... also, i think this thing will be really really awesome considering the fact that Steve Jobs himself is already boasting about it... he never does that prior to a release. (unless he's previewing something for us like he just did with Leopard.)
Merzie
Jun 8, 11:56 PM
edit: last launch.. whoops
No comments:
Post a Comment