powers74
Apr 10, 09:57 PM
If I think the new FCP sucks I'll be b*tching and moaning too. ;)
Lethal
Ha! fair enough.
Lethal
Ha! fair enough.
safe4mx
Apr 7, 11:57 PM
Well that's pretty childish of both parties. :rolleyes:
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 01:46 PM
Oh please if someone has direct access to your phone or computer they could do or find almost anything they wanted. The fact that Apple doesn't even receive this information makes it a non-issue.
srxtr
Apr 11, 01:19 PM
You guys know the average Joe don't go shopping for a new smart phone every other month?
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
This is a big deal to some of you guys only because you obsess over this topic almost daily.
Cameront9
Aug 7, 05:02 PM
Like the whole 3ghz thing?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
In this Case, steve is only dependent on his own company to make it come true.
And did anyone else laugh today when they showed the top of the line Mac Pro--at 3Ghz?
bilbo--baggins
Nov 29, 07:33 AM
When Apple have done so much to counter piracy (introducing legal paid-for downloads, music files that cannot be re-distributed freely, generally raising awareness that music piracy is illegal) I hope that they aren't dooped into agreeing a royalty fee on iPods.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
Ultimately those of us that buy our music legitimately will be paying for those that pirate music (or the music companies go out of business, which isn't going to happen), but for Apple to agree to pay royalties on iPods would be admitting that the iPod helps/encourages people to pirate music.
There is nothing we can do about it, but it would annoy me just as a matter of principle.
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
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.
shawnce
Sep 19, 11:09 AM
Please tell me what is majorly new about the current MacBook Pro besides an intel chip :confused: (and the name of course :rolleyes: )
- 2 CPU cores compared to 1 CPU core
- Radically greater FSB bandwidth
- PC2-5300 DDR2 memory compared to PC2-4200 DDR2
- PCIe 16x for graphics controller compared to AGP 8x
- Improved graphics controller with more VRAM
- Dedicated 1.5 Gbps SATA for hard disk compared to UATA-100
- ExpressCard/34 (has PCIe 1x and USB 2.0) compared to CardBus
- MagSafe power connector
- Built-in iSight camera
- etc.
The ExpressCard alone allows high-speed adapters to external SATA, FireWire, Fibre Channel, etc. devices. It allows for some interesting flexibility that never existed with the PowerBooks.
- 2 CPU cores compared to 1 CPU core
- Radically greater FSB bandwidth
- PC2-5300 DDR2 memory compared to PC2-4200 DDR2
- PCIe 16x for graphics controller compared to AGP 8x
- Improved graphics controller with more VRAM
- Dedicated 1.5 Gbps SATA for hard disk compared to UATA-100
- ExpressCard/34 (has PCIe 1x and USB 2.0) compared to CardBus
- MagSafe power connector
- Built-in iSight camera
- etc.
The ExpressCard alone allows high-speed adapters to external SATA, FireWire, Fibre Channel, etc. devices. It allows for some interesting flexibility that never existed with the PowerBooks.
toddybody
Apr 6, 02:57 PM
This is like ESPN reporting on a 12min mile time for a Special Olympic Runner...
ergle2
Sep 13, 03:02 PM
You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.
Sure, but all those background processes take next to no time to execute -- the extra latency of having more processors will probably slow things down far more than you gain from having up to 8 of those 30 be able to run at any one time.
I'm not saying there's no need for 8 cores -- markets such as databases, media production, rendering, etc. can already make use of that kind of power.
Regular desktops, not so much.
Many simple apps are already mutithreadedto some dgree, but it's to make them non-blocking rather than to spread processor load. If you look at Windows, you'll find a very high number of threads in even just a media player, but some of it's just there to repaint the GUI etc.
rovex
Apr 11, 02:30 PM
Does Arn write every single article on this forum?
leekohler
Mar 23, 03:45 PM
What are fivepoint and MattSepeta arguing about? Obama has not lied or invaded a country for no reason. This is a coordinated effort agreed upon with the UN. Huge difference. Just because people are liberal does not make them opposed to all military action.
I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.
I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.
EagerDragon
Aug 27, 02:55 PM
All these changes are also likely to see a departure from the standard Alum shell. There will probably be a new attractive enclosure to separate the lines. Almost instant load of applications along with all the extra speed of Leopard on a sweet Meron chip with all the new iCandy and functionality will likely make me pull my credit card. Can't wait for next summer!!!!!!
Bring it ON!!!!!!!:)
Bring it ON!!!!!!!:)
Multimedia
Sep 13, 12:21 PM
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.Thank you shelterpaw. And Bravo! Couldn't have said it better. Those who don't see the point of a lot of cores are not doing anything like what those of us who do are. :)I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.Zactly. This is the most reason - not that you need this level of performance 24/7. Thank you for that daver.http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007US79Y.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
MORE POWER!
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.Thank you shelterpaw. And Bravo! Couldn't have said it better. Those who don't see the point of a lot of cores are not doing anything like what those of us who do are. :)I'm underutilizing my cpu nearly all of the time, but that's irrelevant-what really matters to me is that fraction of the time when I *am* asking it to do 4 things at once, and I want it do them at the same speed that each could be done individually.Zactly. This is the most reason - not that you need this level of performance 24/7. Thank you for that daver.http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007US79Y.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
MORE POWER!
Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
mozmac
Nov 29, 09:21 AM
Dirty mother farters. How dare you try to claim a share of the music players. You see, they do more than just music. Would if someone bought one without putting any music on it!
Lollypop
Jul 28, 04:07 AM
I would really like to se a mid range mac, not really fond of the illustrations above but the extra expansion of the pro line would be apreciated but at a more affordable price. I use a few older powermacs for servers but I really would like something with a bit more processing power... :D and something with a bit more longevity, something like a nice new Core 2 Duo Extreme! LOL
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:32 PM
China, having bypassed installing a massive landline strucutre, now has enormous GSM network penetration.
India is also a HUGE GSM market.
Exactly my point. You cant use those numbers to show anything regarding cellphone shares...
India is also a HUGE GSM market.
Exactly my point. You cant use those numbers to show anything regarding cellphone shares...
nealibob
Mar 31, 03:00 PM
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Can't say I disagree.
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
yg17
Apr 28, 04:48 PM
Because there was never a question of wither or not any of those men were born in the US, with Obama the past was always a bit hazy as to if he was actually born in Hawaii or thats just what his parents told him. Obviously he doesn’t remember BEING BORN in hawaii..his parents could have just told him that.
But now we have proof and its all over with there’s no need to be calling names about it.
It never was hazy, there was never any shred of evidence to suggest he was born elsewhere. The ONLY thing they had was the fact that his father was born in Kenya, but if having one parent from another country disqualifies you for being president, then that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.
But now we have proof and its all over with there’s no need to be calling names about it.
It never was hazy, there was never any shred of evidence to suggest he was born elsewhere. The ONLY thing they had was the fact that his father was born in Kenya, but if having one parent from another country disqualifies you for being president, then that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.
NJRonbo
Jun 18, 07:55 PM
Would also like confirmation on this from someone
that works for Radio Shack. Here's why....
If you did not get a PIN it's hard to even pick a store
to try and buy a phone from on launch day.
Most stores were unable to even preorder one phone
for their customers. I called 4 stores in my area and
only one of them was able to generate a single pin.
The store manager told us that the way Radio Shack
determines how many phones they will get is by how
many 3GS phones they sold over the year.
There are so many factors that play with each
individual store not to mention the fact that I don't
think Radio Shack has a huge supply of phones coming
to them in the first place.
that works for Radio Shack. Here's why....
If you did not get a PIN it's hard to even pick a store
to try and buy a phone from on launch day.
Most stores were unable to even preorder one phone
for their customers. I called 4 stores in my area and
only one of them was able to generate a single pin.
The store manager told us that the way Radio Shack
determines how many phones they will get is by how
many 3GS phones they sold over the year.
There are so many factors that play with each
individual store not to mention the fact that I don't
think Radio Shack has a huge supply of phones coming
to them in the first place.
Surreal
Mar 26, 07:40 AM
Thank you for your constructive reply but ....
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
No comments:
Post a Comment