guet
Aug 12, 06:28 AM
I've never paid for a phone up til now (as is the case with most UK residents I'd assume) so it would be an impressive feat if Apple can persuade people in this type of marketplace to actually put their hands in their pockets for a phone.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:51 PM
The First Commercial GUI
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5659/star1vg.gif
Xerox's Star workstation was the first commercial implementation of the graphical user interface. The Star was introduced in 1981 and was the inspiration for the Mac and all the other GUIs that followed.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7892/leopardpreviewdesktop4.jpghttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5733/xerox8010star.gif
-The Star was not a commercial product. Xerox didn't sell them. (Well eventually they did, but not as PCs. they were to be similar to what we'd call a terminal today.)
-the middle image is actually of an Apple Lisa. I think you were just showing as a comparison, but some people might think your saying it's a Star. It's not. It's a Lisa.
-Apple compensated Xerox for the ideas borrowed from the Star. SJ and the mac team were already working on the GUI before any of them ever saw the Star though. Also, Macintosh 1 wasn't a copy of the Star. In fact a lot of the stables of a modern GUI today were innovated by Apple for the Macintosh.
wpotere
Apr 27, 10:17 AM
Trump is a hero. :rolleyes:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/trump-takes-credit-for-release-of-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/
I listened to the report and I can't understand a word he is saying. He babbles about nothing.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/trump-takes-credit-for-release-of-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/
I listened to the report and I can't understand a word he is saying. He babbles about nothing.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:16 AM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).
Bring on the serious grunt!!
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)
Bring on the serious grunt!!
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
shelterpaw
Jul 20, 11:11 AM
I think Logic can only use two cores/processors with a cludge to use the other two on a quad (by pretending it's a remote machine). Someone told me this though so I'm not 100% on that.I'm not sure either and I shouldn't have made the assumption. I know Ableton and Cubase do as I've used both and I'm now an avid Ableton user. I'd imagine Logic will take full advantage sometime soon since it's now one of Apple's pro applications. It certainly makes sense considering how bogged down your system gets once you load enough virtual instruments and effects.
iGary
Sep 13, 07:14 AM
DAMN :eek:
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
*waits for software to catch up*
so 2-3 years from now are people going to be asking "do I need a quad core or an 8 core macbook? oh yeah I'll mostly be surfing the web and maybe editing a photo once and a while" :rolleyes:
*waits for software to catch up*
KPOM
Apr 6, 02:25 PM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
Gurutech
Aug 7, 08:16 PM
Yes, absolutely:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don�t have to install separate applications for different machines. There�s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don�t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard.
Wait. Does this mean that the Leopard doesn't support current MBP or MB? the ones that use 32 bit Yonah based Core Duo CPU.
skunk
Mar 22, 08:27 AM
Sometimes silence speaks more than words. Your avoidance of the central issue, and irrelevant or at least less relevant focus on the size, and militarism of coalition countries indicates a lack of understanding or a willful avoidance of the issue I brought up... the 'anti-change' Obama really stands for and the hypocrisy of those on the left and the American media in general when it comes to wartime actions of Dem and Repub presidentsI could not be less interested in taking part in one your tedious party political rants. I was simply suggesting a blindingly obvious reason for the difference between the size of the bought coalition of the craven in 2003 and the present effort. You brought that up, nobody else.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 07:22 PM
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
I neither agree or disagree with this statement, I'm just very curious as to whether or not it is true. Anyone have an data that can prove/disprove this?
I neither agree or disagree with this statement, I'm just very curious as to whether or not it is true. Anyone have an data that can prove/disprove this?
amin
Aug 22, 07:33 PM
Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores.
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?
SuperSnake2012
Aug 5, 11:42 PM
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
The funny thing is that the website is almost spot on with everything. :D
The funny thing is that the website is almost spot on with everything. :D
msb3079
Apr 7, 10:59 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 09:04 PM
What does my post have to do with cinema excellence?
Well, it's certainly sweeping drama based on fiction. Like so many Oscar winners, it's also a bit of vapid fluff that people will view and quickly forget. Frankly, I didn't mean to imply any excellence other than at making completely unfounded generalizations.
Unless influenced otherwise the brain develops heterosexually
Are you saying you think people program themselves to be gay? Or is it based on what cartoons they watch as a kid? Maybe lack of a father figure? Tell us more, Doc!
Well, it's certainly sweeping drama based on fiction. Like so many Oscar winners, it's also a bit of vapid fluff that people will view and quickly forget. Frankly, I didn't mean to imply any excellence other than at making completely unfounded generalizations.
Unless influenced otherwise the brain develops heterosexually
Are you saying you think people program themselves to be gay? Or is it based on what cartoons they watch as a kid? Maybe lack of a father figure? Tell us more, Doc!
iJohnHenry
Mar 5, 07:35 PM
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
Yes, but actual critical thinking is no where near as much fun. :p
Yes, but actual critical thinking is no where near as much fun. :p
Bill McEnaney
Apr 28, 02:57 PM
...so what you said about doubting and not believing is not true.
I was making a general point. Skunk is asking about a specific one. If I deny that I believe some proposition, that may because I haven't formed any opinion about whether it's true. If I haven't formed any opinion about whether that proposition is true, I neither believe that proposition, doubt it, nor believe that it's false. I've suspended judgment about it. You ask me whether I like lobster. I say "no" because I haven't tried it. Since I haven't tried it, I have no idea whether I'll like it. I'll tell you, "Let's wait and see whether I'll like it." Skunk told me that he didn't hate me. I'm glad he doesn't hate me, but I don't know whether he likes me. If he dislikes me, that's all right. But if he says that he doesn't hate me, that doesn't imply that he likes me.
No, folks, I haven't been talking in circles.
I was making a general point. Skunk is asking about a specific one. If I deny that I believe some proposition, that may because I haven't formed any opinion about whether it's true. If I haven't formed any opinion about whether that proposition is true, I neither believe that proposition, doubt it, nor believe that it's false. I've suspended judgment about it. You ask me whether I like lobster. I say "no" because I haven't tried it. Since I haven't tried it, I have no idea whether I'll like it. I'll tell you, "Let's wait and see whether I'll like it." Skunk told me that he didn't hate me. I'm glad he doesn't hate me, but I don't know whether he likes me. If he dislikes me, that's all right. But if he says that he doesn't hate me, that doesn't imply that he likes me.
No, folks, I haven't been talking in circles.
Dagless
Aug 9, 09:06 AM
If sales are the judge of a games greatness, then Mario Kart on the Wii is the greatest racing game of all time. No doubt about it. The number of copies sold backs that up. Sorry GT.
Can't tell if you're joking or not. But the Mario Kart series has almost always been very highly rated.
Can't tell if you're joking or not. But the Mario Kart series has almost always been very highly rated.
ergle2
Sep 14, 08:42 PM
I think you're a bit arse-about-face there. Someone else has already pointed out the differences between XP and Windows 2003 aren't trivial, so I won't go into that. However, if you're sufficient vintage, you should remember the "outrage" when someone demonstrated that you could turn NT 4 Workstation into NT 4 Server (including the boot and login screens) just by changing a few Registry settings (although the part that usually doesn't get said is that those Registry settings then triggered a whole range of different tuning settings for the scheduler, memory management, etc). NT 3.5 & 3.51 were the same, and IIRC, NT 3.1 didn't even have a "Server" version.
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Quite a few bits of XP Pro functionality can be enabled in XP home with some minor hex editing, too.
And of course, NT started as a reimplementation of VMS for a failed Intel RISC CPU...
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:31 PM
And I remember that they were very concerned about the lack of ECC memory, and were extremely eager to replace them with Xserves as soon as the G5 model came out.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
Yeah, the original PowerMac G5 cluster thingy was really just a proof of concept that a high-powered supercomputer could be made from Macs and using the Mac OS. It never ran anything mission critical because of the lack of ECC RAM which could cause all sorts of trouble with calculations if there was even one bit flip.
Once the XServe came out with ECC support they swapped out the PowerMacs (I think MacMall had a big sale of the PMs from the Virginia system) and replaced them with 2.3GHz XServes made specially for them by Apple - at the time I think the XServes were only 2GHz so Apple made a bunch of 2.3GHz systems for Virginia to counteract the effect of the time they lost replacing the PowerMacs.
marksman
Apr 11, 03:14 PM
You're kidding right? iPhone 4 and iOS 4 are incredibly stale. Apple has realized this and hence strong rumors suggest a total revamped iOS 5. Anyway i don't agree with you, i don't think the iPhone 4 is the best smartphone in the market.
No I am not kidding. If those are the best phones in the market why do multiple iPhone and Blackberry devices outsell the best android phone ALWAYS?
People keep wanting to point to these android spec whore of the month models, but they don't offer a superior experience... It is just silly.
Like I said,t he iPhone 4 is stil the best smartphone out there.
The thunderbolt doesn't even come close to outselling the iPhone just on Verizon.
No I am not kidding. If those are the best phones in the market why do multiple iPhone and Blackberry devices outsell the best android phone ALWAYS?
People keep wanting to point to these android spec whore of the month models, but they don't offer a superior experience... It is just silly.
Like I said,t he iPhone 4 is stil the best smartphone out there.
The thunderbolt doesn't even come close to outselling the iPhone just on Verizon.
E.Lizardo
Apr 8, 06:38 AM
Doesn't affect me.Wouldn't purchase anything from BB unless it was a matter of life and death.They are scum.
MacNut
Apr 27, 12:55 PM
Why would the White House release a fake document, that would be the stupidest thing they could ever do. I will also go on record of saying I don't know what an official Hawaii certificate even looks like. That being said I know my short form birth certificate has an embossed seal on it. I have never seen my long form so I don't know what it looks like. Should there be official markings that would prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is legit.
OSXconvert
Aug 17, 03:32 PM
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.
Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.
The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.
Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.